Prisons: Family Visits

Baroness Stern: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the arrangements for families visiting Her Majesty's prisons are satisfactory.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government recognise the importance that maintaining meaningful family contact has in keeping families together. Social visits represent one way of facilitating this. While arrangements can always be improved, the Prison Service works hard to provide a positive environment for family visits within the constraints of prison security. As part of this effort, an increasing number of prisons organise extended family visits and family days.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply and for his comment that arrangements can always be improved. The Minister will be aware that the number of visits to prisoners has fallen by one-third over five years while the prison population has risen by a one-fifth. Noble Lords may be aware that in order to have a visit, prisoners' family members have to phone and book. Has the Minister seen the recent report on one prison by the Chief Inspector of Prisons? After complaints from visitors, the Chief Inspector's team tried to phone. It took 11 attempts over the course of 25 hours before it received an answer. Has the Minister considered asking the Prison Service to make answering those phone calls a priority and to have as a target for answering them a certain number of minutes, rather than hours?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a telling point. The issue that she has raised is important. The Prison Service is giving careful consideration to ways in which the hotline service can be improved. As I said in my initial response, we know that improvements can always be made and we continually strive to achieve improved levels of service, particularly in visitor booking.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the real problem is our unacceptably high prison population? We have the worst record in western Europe and, as a result, we shunt inmates from one prison to another. It is almost impossible for people on a limited income to visit relatives because of the cost involved. Bearing in mind also the limited opportunities for purposeful activity in prison, what is being done to reduce our prison population?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the prison population has indeed increased. In part, that is a result of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. If people commit offences that are imprisonable, they face the possibility of being imprisoned. No one would say with hand on heart that it is desirable to have an ever rising prison population, but that is what governments have to deal with in the real world. We are striving to improve access to prisons for prisoners' close relatives and children and we have been taking steps to achieve that. There were some 60,000 assisted prison visits, financed through the Prison Service, last year. That is a record. That means that those families who are on low incomes and suffer a level of deprivation have the opportunity to visit prisons by way of a funded visit.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what progress is being made in helping visitors who have a disability, remembering that visits sometimes involve long distances and that many disabled people are elderly as well as severely disabled?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot give a precise response to the noble Baroness. The Prison Service recognises the importance of making visitor areas accessible. That matter is of concern. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness to provide her with some details and some examples of work undertaken in the Prison Service to ensure that access is available for those are disabled and seek to make a prison visit.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, to what extent has it become more difficult in recent years to place prisoners in establishments that are reasonably close to their homes? Compared with whatever period the Minister cares to deal with five or 10 years ago, it is now much more difficult for families to gain access to their husbands or sons.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we accept that there will be difficulties in managing the prison population at a time when prison numbers have been increasing. On the best estimates available, some 65 per cent of all those who are in prison are housed within a 50-mile radius of their home or the court in which they were sentenced, which is an indicator of where they are likely to live. Only 14 per cent of prisoners are further than 100 miles away from their place of residence or their assumed place of residence. We recognise the difficulties and strive to accommodate the access needs of those who wish to make visits, but, as I said at the outset, there is clearly much more that needs to be done to ensure that that access is much more easily attainable.

Lord Elton: My Lords, how long after a prisoner is moved are his next of kin told of his new place? How often do his next of kin, when visiting, find that they have wait outside the prison in the rain for a long period before they are admitted?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure that we keep records on rainfall and attempts to visit prisons. I do not wish to make light of the point, which I understand perfectly well. As soon as is practicable and reasonable in the circumstances, families are advised of any movements that have been made by a member of the family who is in prison.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, visitor centres, which are relevant to the previous question, play a crucial role in the quality of prisoners' families' visits. The Prison Service states that it has 110 visitor centres, although only 85 are properly manned and giving a necessary and effective service. Thirty prisons have nothing at all, including the newest women's prison, where they have to make do with the car park. Does the Minister agree that visitor centres must be more than simply waiting rooms with a lavatory and some refreshments? What plans are there to turn the current 25 waiting rooms into proper visitor centres?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my data suggest that, out of 141 prisons, 112 have access to a visitor centre of some description. Eighty of those prisons have play areas in the visit halls, which is an important statistic. More importantly still, it suggests that there is a high degree of concern to ensure that a more accommodating area is available for those families who visit with children and young people. I do not have a schedule of works to upgrade and improve visitor areas, but on my visits to prisons, I have seen some very good examples of the facilities that are provided. We accept that there is always more that can be done. Each governor in each prison must make a judgment as to where he wishes to place his investment in terms of upgrading visitor centres and providing that facility and service.

Trespass: Royal Palaces

Lord Renton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to trespass into or on buildings which are the property of Her Majesty the Queen.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have been considering whether it is necessary to create a specific offence of trespass for certain royal and government sites. We hope to be able to come to a conclusion shortly.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer as far as it goes. Is she aware that although, each year, thousands of people enter Buckingham Palace and Holyrood, unlawful intruders occasionally penetrate them, but commit only non-criminal trespass in doing so? Indeed, a few years ago, one of them even climbed up to Her Majesty's bedroom and committed merely a non-criminal offence of trespass. As an international terrorist might commit trespass in either royal palace, should it not be made a serious criminal offence?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point, which is why Her Majesty's Government have given the matter anxious attention. He will know that such activities can be addressed under a number of Acts, but that no specific offence applies. That is the issue to which we are now giving the most careful consideration. We think there may be a strong argument for introducing a specific offence of criminal trespass in relation only to Her Majesty's premises and perhaps to certain other secure sites.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that a slippery slope is implicit in this question? When I first visited Moscow there was a lane down the middle of the highways enabling the ZISs to go unmolested through the capital. There are dangers in our head of state and our political elite becoming ever more isolated by security measures. Those dangers should be put in the balance when considering these matters.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that we have to be proportionate. That is why we have to look with very great care at the precise nature of the lacuna—the gap that we have to fill—and ensure that we do not do that which is unnecessary or too heavy handed. But the issue does need to be addressed.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, how long has this anxious thought process been going on, and when does the Minister think it might come to a conclusion?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for always having the most helpful question. I can tell your Lordships that this matter has been under consideration since the latter part of 2003; your Lordships will remember the issue in relation to Windsor. We hope that we will soon be able to say precisely how this matter should be dealt with—and your Lordships know what "soon" can mean.

Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that only a very short Bill will be needed? I suggest that it is likely to get support from all over both Houses.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's indication of his support. My period at the Dispatch Box tells me that I have to take any further support with a little degree of caution. I can certainly tell your Lordships that I reasonably believe that this is an issue that we will be able to address relatively speedily.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the Minister says that the Government have been addressing the issue with "anxious attention". Is not a year a rather long time to spend on "anxious attention"?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no. It is a very complex issue. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, says, it is an issue of proportionality. Noble Lords will know that trespass currently is not a criminal offence. If a little boy kicks his ball into someone's garden or an old lady chases her dog on to someone's property in order to retrieve it, it should not be a criminal offence. We have to identify the other laws that currently cover the situation and fashion a sufficiently narrow provision to catch the mischief that we have all now seen identified.
	This mischief is continuing and there have been a number of breaches. That is why we have to deal with it. I hope the House will feel that that is appropriate. We have to be protective in relation to security but conscious in relation to civil liberties and the practicalities of doing what makes sense.

Water Purification Units

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many water purification units they keep in storage; what use will be made of them in emergencies; and whether they are available to help in crisis situations overseas.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government do not have any stocks of water purification units. Water companies have some units that are available to assist in emergencies abroad, although they would be provided only if they were the most appropriate response in the circumstances. The Armed Forces also hold a range of water purification equipment that could be made available to assist the civil authorities either in the UK or overseas—subject, of course, to military priorities.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but I am also a wee bit disappointed. We know that pure, safe drinking water is one of the most desperate needs in the world today. For example, every 15 seconds, a child will die of cholera brought about by polluted water. However, that is a long-term issue. We have, in the short term, had crises such as those in Sudan and Rwanda. Will the Government encourage the Ministry of Defence and the water authorities to respond immediately to meet those needs wherever they arise? I hope the Minister can give me that assurance.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, this country has a very good record on responding to the type of emergency situations to which the noble Lord referred. The water purification units to which I referred are somewhat old kit; they belonged to the Government but were handed over to the then water boards in the 1980s. They certainly do not meet current European and British water standards. They have been used in overseas emergencies; I think the latest one was in Bosnia. However, in many cases my colleagues in DfID and the operators on the ground find that water purification tablets are a better way of dealing with emergency situations than large-scale water purification plants.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this Question covers emergencies in this country as well as overseas. Did the national emergency leaflet that was recently handed out advise people to hold water purification tablets? Many tourists take these tablets with them when they go abroad and they are considered very effective.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I need to check, but I do not believe that the subject was covered in those terms in the leaflet. If I am wrong about that, I will write to the noble Baroness. The Government take seriously the issue of the availability of water purification tablets. The issue of the responsibility of the individual citizen probably should also be addressed.

Lord McNally: My Lords, what the Minister is saying is rather disturbing. Later today we will debate the Civil Contingencies Bill, but he has just told us that some of the water companies' equipment may be old kit from the Ministry of Defence. Is not one of the most important issues that the civil authorities can guarantee the water supply in the event of a terrorist attack via the water supply?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the answer to that must be, "Yes". Without going into detail, I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that, in the light of potential threats, security on water installations has been very substantially improved. But it is also true that if, for whatever reason, the water supply breaks down in the United Kingdom—which still has a reasonably plentiful supply of water—water to make up that supply is delivered via tankering or water purification tablets rather than by direct purification. Those means have been more appropriate.
	I do not wish to be misquoted regarding the reference to old kit. The Government used to have that equipment as part of their civil defence contingency requirements. The Government no longer have that equipment, which now rests with the water companies, but we can require them to provide it. The military equipment may well be to a far better standard, though I cannot reveal its exact specifications. The military also would play a role in any UK civil contingency of the kind described.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I am still disappointed by the Minister's response. We are not dealing with a handful of people to whom we can hand out tablets. We are dealing with millions of people.

Noble Lords: Question!

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I am sorry. You are dealing with polluted water. I would certainly like to see—

Noble Lords: Question!

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: I apologise, my Lords. Is it possible for the older water purification plants to be made available immediately to those areas of greatest need?

Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, they would be made available if they were the best way to deal with the crisis. But it is also true that other means of obtaining water, even with a large-scale contamination, would probably be more cost-effective and timely than using those purification plants—even state-of-the-art purification plants—on a mobile basis. There are substantial ways in which to get water to the population short of using those plants. But if it were necessary, they would be made available.

Annuities and Smoking

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they propose to take to prevent financial institutions selling annuities conditional on buyers continuing to smoke.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government do not believe that new legislation would be appropriate to deal with this issue. Regulation of this kind could be better implemented through the codes of practice issued by the Association of British Insurers.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, I wonder if he is aware that a leader in the latest issue of The Week magazine said that companies selling annuities to smokers at discounts threatened to cancel the annuities and confiscate the payments if the annuitants thereafter dropped to smoking fewer than 10 cigarettes a day. This is not a question of codes of practice. Is it not the equivalent of abetting suicide, which is a crime?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Association of British Insurers knows of no company offering annuities on that basis. Clearly, judgments are made by insurers about the length of time which someone is likely to live, on the basis of a calculation. But no company follows the practice which the noble Lord contends is an abuse. It certainly would be an abuse, and the Association of British Insurers would take action accordingly.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the terms on which open-market annuities are offered is an important matter, the biggest issue about annuities at the moment is the absurd requirement for those reaching the age of 75 to use their pension funds to acquire annuities? When will the Government do something about that?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will recognise that investments in money purchase saving enjoy a very generous tax privilege position in order that people can provide a guaranteed income for themselves to the end of their lives. An annuity provides the insurance against the uncertainty of life expectancy by pooling mortality risk. Because we as a society provide through those tax concessions generous support in the build-up of those annuities, it is right that we should insist that the pot of money that becomes available is devoted towards an income that will sustain someone through their life. That is why there is a compulsory element to it.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is the Minister confident that such tables are accurate, bearing in mind that one of the observations of Adair Turner's pension review was that the actuaries got it all hopelessly wrong? Are they using the same tables?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, certainly that was an important point from the report on the pensions issue that we received this week, of which we have taken very clear note. The House will recognise that the report is an interim one. It certainly meant to provoke widespread serious thought about the future of pensions—and it will come as no surprise to the House that that is exactly the view that Ministers take on pensions. Some difficult decisions lie ahead, which are of course not aided if there are doubts about statistics. That point in the report is to be taken seriously.

Lord Newby: My Lords, returning to the original Question, I wonder whether the Minister could go back to the ABI. It is a serious public policy issue if there are policies which, in effect, encourage people to continue a practice which the Government are trying to persuade them to stop. I felt that the Minister's response was rather complacent. Could he give the House an assurance that he will go back to the insurance industry, find out whether in fact such policies exist and, if they do, make the Government's displeasure clearly known to the relevant companies?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I certainly give the assurance that I shall look further at the situation. I would not wish to be accused justifiably of complacency about such an important public health issue. However, the point that I sought to make about the original Question was that the Association of British Insurers knows of no firm that offers annuities that are conditional in that way. It is not a question of going back to the ABI for that information; we have been to the ABI, which is why I am able to state that in such categorical terms. But of course I shall follow up the point further.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, I declare an interest as an ex-insurance executive, now living on a pension from the industry. The issue is very simple. Whether a person does or does not smoke has major actuarial implications. Therefore, in the course of granting a life policy, the applicant will be asked whether he smokes. If he says yes, he will automatically get a much better deal. If it then subsequently becomes clear that he had stopped smoking a long time before, the company would be able to claim that he gave a false declaration and that the policy was invalid.

Noble Lords: Question!

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but he will recognise that there is a vast difference between a policy asking the question, "Has the applicant been a smoker and is a regular smoker?" and one which actually applies the policy conditional upon future behaviour. That was the burden of the original Question. I was merely seeking to assure the House that, of course, account is taken of past practice and current states of health when decisions are taken but that the Association of British Insurers believes that no one is acting in this crucial area, as regards the contingent element, in the way which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, identified in his original Question.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, would the Minister's inquiries perhaps bear more fruit if he could persuade the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, to provide him with the evidence on which he based his Question? Is not the Minister right to lay stress on the word "conditional"? I never saw anything remotely like that during my period in the life insurance industry—but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will be able to produce evidence.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I understood that he was quoting some aspect of evidence, which will be in Hansard and which we would automatically take on board very seriously—particularly as I have given the undertaking to follow up the matter. If the noble Lord is able to quote chapter and verse in much greater detail, it is in his interest to provide that information and in ours to follow it up.

Civil Contingencies Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTES (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
	Clause 2 [Duty to assess, plan and advise]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 3, line 8, leave out subsection (2).

Baroness Hamwee: In moving the amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 23, 25, 26, 38, 46 and 47.
	Amendment No. 22 is tabled to seek to understand what subsection (2) means. It provides that,
	"a duty under subsection (1) applies in relation to an emergency only",
	in the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). Under Clause 2(1), the responder has a duty to assess and plan. That has to be the first stage, which must be right. However, under Clause 2(2), the duties required to be undertaken to assess and plan apply only in certain circumstances. I am unclear on how the responder can know whether the circumstances apply unless the provisions are under subsection (1).
	Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 suggest that there may be scope for a Minister to indicate which, of a number of bodies, should,
	"take the lead in exercising a function or co-ordinating the exercise of functions".
	There may be services and circumstances in which it is necessary to know who takes the lead. The Minister and I are both veterans of the Fire and Rescue Services Act, in the passage of which there were discussions on the relationship between the fire and police authorities. The issue may be covered by other legislation; I simply do not know. The point may be quite technical. The draft regulations provide for protocols between responders, and perhaps who will take the lead will be covered in those, but I would be grateful if the Minister would assist.
	Amendment No. 26 would leave out, from subsection (5)(a), "or is not". That would make the provision state that regulations could,
	"make provision about the kind of emergency in relation to which a specified person or body is to perform a duty".
	I query whether regulations should provide whether a specified person or body is not to perform a duty. It is a bit puzzling that regulations could, in effect, say to a body, "We have just given you a whole page that tells you what to do. Now we are telling you which of that list you are not to do".
	An NHS trust may not be the body to assess a risk, for instance. I would accept that, but I am unclear about how the provision will work. Will the regulations provide that those who assess risks will disseminate their findings and evaluation to bodies such as an NHS trust that would not be required to assess it, if the regulations so provide? I hope that I have picked the right sort of example.
	Amendment No. 38 would omit Clause 2(5)(o), which provides for regulations to confer functions on Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales and so on. I acknowledge that an affirmative resolution will be required but, constitutionally, it seems quite interesting that Ministers can acquire extra functions through a back-door route.
	Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 question whether collaboration is to be prohibited, which is how I read the relevant parts of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I simply speak to Amendment No. 22, with which I have some difficulty. What the subsection means is important. It imposes a duty on someone in relation to an emergency only if, in one case, it is,
	"likely seriously to obstruct the person or body in the performance of",
	their functions. Then, however, paragraph (b) states that,
	"it is likely that the person or body . . . would consider it necessary or desirable to take action to prevent the emergency".
	If one can take action to prevent the emergency, it is not an emergency. There is a lack of clarity in the drafting.
	If this is a Bill to deal with emergencies, we need to think very seriously about it being that. If it is a Bill to deal with emergency planning—another matter entirely—perhaps we ought to deal with that in the Title. Everyone has a duty to plan and think about what happens in the event of an emergency. I have looked at the end of the Bill at the list of repeals of existing emergency planning legislation, and I assume that it is complementary and has caught every emergency planning power that exists.
	I come back to the fact that an emergency is an event. Planning for an emergency can be done, and it is very sensible. But if one can prevent an emergency, there is no emergency in the first place. It is a moot point how one makes the distinction between action to deal with an emergency and the planning stage. Conceivably, planning might prevent an emergency, but it seems to me that it would not. One thing that worries me about the Bill is that it gives people power to start taking all sorts of action before there is an emergency. I wonder whether that is correct. In many instances, it may well lead to inappropriate action.
	To that extent, I support the noble Baroness in her question on this part of the Bill. My remarks are to try to persuade the Minister to explain with greater clarity than exists in the present wording exactly what is implied by the subsection.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their points and questions on this part of the Bill. I shall go very carefully through it, and can probably cover most of the points raised. In essence, the amendments probe the extent of civil protection duties in Part 1 and the scope for responders to enter into collaborative arrangements to fulfil those duties.
	When we debated the Bill previously, I made it plain that we saw it very much as a civil protection framework developed in a very open way—in as consultative a way as one can—so that emergencies would be covered. We are working closely with all the stakeholder groups to ensure that that openness continues. We hope that that will inform the way in which guidance is produced, so that that guidance accurately reflects good practice.
	The amendments raise interesting issues, and enable us to demonstrate that the Government have a sound approach. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 22. In our discussion on Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 about the definition of emergencies, I noted that we were striving to underpin the civil protection framework set out in Part 1, as it describes which events or situations will trigger the civil protection duties. Simply because an event or situation threatens serious damage to human welfare, the environment or security of a place in the United Kingdom to such an extent that it meets the definition of emergency in Clause 1 does not necessarily mean that the civil protection duties apply. There are a number of responders—in particular the "blue-light services"—who deal with emergencies every day. But the Bill is not about day-to-day events. For example, requiring the police to assess the risk of, and maintain plans to deal with, serious crime is not the job of the Bill, even though many incidents of serious crime will fall within the definition of an emergency. The police deal with crime on a daily basis. It is for police legislation to prescribe how the police should perform those duties.
	The Joint Committee indicated that it did not consider the definition of emergency to be a sufficient threshold for the duties. The Government agreed. That is why we have introduced Clause 2(2). Its effect is that the duties under the Bill should apply only to those events which are both emergencies within the meaning of Clause 1 and which stretch the capability of the responder. Clause 2(2) closely follows the existing definition of "major incident" used by responders and in the current guidance on civil protection, Dealing with disaster, which is a guidance document issued by the Cabinet Office. The test in Clause 2(2) makes sense, it is grounded in experience and it commands the support of the emergency planning community. For that reason, we intend keep it.
	Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 would enable regulations under Clause 2 to provide which person or body should take the lead in exercising a function or co-ordinating the exercise of the functions. I agree that there is merit in regulations providing which responder in an area should take the lead in performing a particular duty. Rather than all responders in a particular area performing the same duty—for example, assessing the risk of a flood—it will often be appropriate for one responder to take the lead in assessing the risk of a flood—the Environment Agency in most instances—and sharing its work with others. Furthermore, it might be appropriate for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to take the lead in assessing the risk of maritime pollution and sharing the work with others—mostly local authorities and, perhaps, health service responders.
	Indeed the Government propose, subject to consultation, to make regulations to provide for this. For example, the regulations relating to the duty to advise, warn and inform the public will ensure that for any emergency only a single body takes the lead in communicating with the public, with the other bodies acting in support. For most eventualities this "lead responder" will be established by agreement in advance, according to processes described in accompanying guidance. I agree with the thinking behind Amendments Nos. 23 and 25, but they are unnecessary as the Bill currently allows this. Clause 2(3)(b) allows provision to be made about the manner in which a duty is to be performed and that includes appointing "lead responders". I hope that that is clear.
	Amendment No. 26 has also raised some concerns. This Bill is an enabling Bill—I am sure that most noble Lords understand that—and is intended to provide Ministers with the flexibility to cut back and clarify the duties in the Bill. Clause 2(5)(a) currently provides that a Minister of the Crown may make regulations concerning the kind of emergency for which a local responder should and should not perform a duty. The amendments would remove the possibility to specify that a duty should not be performed in relation to an emergency. This is a sensible provision that the Government should retain. It is worth setting out how the Government will, or could, use this provision.
	For example, the Bill requires responders to assess the risk of an emergency occurring—which means any emergency. The current draft of the regulations provides that responders need only assess the risk of an emergency occurring which will, or may, affect the geographical area for which the responder is responsible. The power to specify the kind of emergencies in relation to which the duties should be performed is not intended as a means of micro-managing local responders, but rather as a way of government offering clarification. Another example is where two or more responders were performing a duty in a way which overlapped or caused confusion through duplication. This provision could be used to specify who should and should not perform a duty in relation to a particular emergency. This need has not yet arisen, but it may in the future.
	Amendment No. 38 would prevent regulations under Clause 2 conferring a function on a Minister or another person. I can understand why the possibility of a Minister conferring functions on himself in this area may cause concern, but the Government believe that this amendment would remove a useful area of flexibility, which we may need to have. For example, the Bill imposes a duty on local responders to assess risks. However, some risks—for example, terrorism or severe weather—are best assessed nationally. The draft regulations currently make use of that power by conferring a function on a Minister of the Crown of issuing risk assessments to local responders. This means that local responders do not have to duplicate unnecessarily risk assessment undertaken at the central or regional level. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has just reported on the Bill, did not raise any concerns on this enabling provision, which is essentially a power to sub-delegate.
	Clause 5 enables Ministers to make regulations requiring a responder to perform a function in relation to an emergency. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would prevent orders under Clause 5 prohibiting a responder collaborating with, or delegating functions to, another responder. While the situations in which it would be appropriate to bar collaboration or delegation are likely to be unusual, orders are more likely to require collaboration than prohibit it. But there may well be circumstances in which that would be appropriate. For example, where a uniform response is required, delegating a function to a third party may not be appropriate. Orders under Clause 5 must be approved by both Houses before being made; so Parliament would be able to consider any provision of this kind before it was made.
	In conclusion, the Bill is intended to provide a flexible, long-term framework for civil contingency planning at the local level. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would undermine this and I hope that she will not press them. I apologise for examining the matter in some detail, but we must all try to understand how such matters work in practice and why flexibility is necessary in certain definitions that should be in place in particular circumstances. I hope that the detail has helped.

Baroness Hamwee: Indeed, it has. I will have to read the examples that the Minister has given to see whether there might be other examples that are less benign. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to an "emergency situation" as distinct from an "emergency event". Perhaps the answer to that lies in the definition of "emergency" in the first line of the Bill, which says,
	"'emergency' means an event or situation".
	Perhaps that deals with noble Lord's concerns.
	Regarding Amendment No. 26, the Minister referred to bodies taking responsibility for their own geographical areas but not other areas. That is sensible. But subsection (5)(a) refers to the "kind of emergency", not the place where it is happening. I suppose that one would not be expecting one service necessarily to be able to perform the functions of another—although having said that, I remember the debates about whether defibrillators should be carried on all emergency vehicles. So the matter is not always straightforward.
	On Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, the Minister talked about barring delegation. I understand that one might wish to prohibit delegation, but I wonder whether one would ever want to prohibit collaboration. There is much concern regarding this issue and I apologise to other noble Lords to whom all this might have seemed a bit opaque. I am grateful for the examples. I may wish to return to a couple of points at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

Lord Jopling: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, make provision—
	(a) requiring members of the emergency services as well as certain members of the relevant voluntary services to be vaccinated or injected against organisms which might be used by terrorists, notwithstanding existing health and safety, or other legislation,
	(b) requiring those authorities which control ports, airports or frontiers as well as local authorities to install special equipment to monitor the control of lorries, containers or other objects, for suspicious contents or persons,
	(c) requiring those authorities which control ports, airports or frontiers, as well as local authorities to install specified equipment designed to monitor persons, conveyances or other objects for radiological material, and
	(d) requiring local authorities to obtain specific static or mobile equipment which is designed to identify the presence of chemicals or biological material, which might be used in a terrorist attack."

Lord Jopling: The amendment follows remarks that I made at Second Reading expressing my serious concerns at the nation's lack of preparation for a serious terrorist attack. I said then and say again that I believe that the Government and the nation are severely unprepared for the kind of attack which could confront us at any time.
	On 17 May, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, wrote a letter to my noble friend Lady Buscombe which I think sums it all up. He said that,
	"the Bill is not driven by urgent operational need; rather it is a timely modernisation of existing legislation".
	I think that that says it all. To me, it takes little account of the remarks made some time ago by Eliza Manningham-Buller, Director General of the Security Service (MI5). She told the Royal United Services Institute:
	"My conclusion, based on the intelligence we have uncovered, is that we are faced with the realistic possibility of some form of unconventional attack. That could include a Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear attack. Sadly, given the widespread proliferation of the technical knowledge to construct these weapons, it will be only a matter of time before a crude version of a CBRN attack is launched at a major Western city".
	The Government say that this matter is not urgent. I am sorry, my Lords, but I believe that it is very urgent indeed. It is made all the more urgent because of our association with the United States 18 months ago in attacking Iraq. I made a speech to your Lordships on the eve of that attack, when I dissociated myself from both my own Front Bench and the Government because I thought that it was a mistake. I shall not get into all that, but that attack has made us very much more exposed to a terrorist attack than we would otherwise have been.
	The Bill deals largely with an emergency. An emergency is defined in one part of the Bill as a situation which is about to occur, is occurring or has occurred. My belief is that this is all far too late. The Government should have powers to take firm measures in certain directions long before an emergency is about to occur. In addition, in many cases where an emergency is about to occur, it is then far too late to deal with many of the things that should have been dealt with.
	When he first wrote a letter to many noble Lords following Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made no reference whatever to the comments that I made at that stage of the Bill. When I protested about that, he was kind enough to write to me again on 7 September at some length, but he said in that letter that my comments were "outwith the Bill". However, the Long Title states that this is a Bill:
	"To make provision about civil contingencies".
	I should be very surprised indeed if he seeks to argue today that the amendment that we are now discussing is not entirely a provision about civil contingencies. Therefore, I reject that part of his comment entirely.
	I come now to the specifics of my amendment. In paragraph (a), I have sought to give the Government powers to require certain members of the emergency services to be vaccinated as a precaution against various bacteriological or virus bodies which could be used in a terrorist attack. I should have thought that it would be basic common sense that a large number of people in the emergency services must be prepared to deal with anyone who becomes ill as a consequence of a biological terrorist attack. I agree very much with the attitude of the Government as expressed in the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, sent me on 7 September. He told me that it was the Government's view that,
	"it would be prudent to have a small cohort of key health personnel in each Region vaccinated in advance of an outbreak of smallpox [so that any initial or suspect cases could be dealt with safely], a limited vaccination programme of key healthcare staff who form the basis of the Regional Response Teams has been undertaken and vaccination of a number of ambulance workers in each Region is underway".
	I approve of that. I consider it prudent and sensible that emergency workers should be vaccinated against various conditions which might form the basis of a bacteriological attack.
	But let us look at the result of that programme. Back in March, I asked how many doctors, nurses and so on had been vaccinated. I was told that the answer was: 140 doctors over the whole country and 123 nurses. I asked the same Question in July. I was told that the number of doctors had gone up by one to 141, that the number of nurses over that four-month period had gone up by three to 126, and that now, if you please, over the whole country only six ambulance workers have been vaccinated against smallpox. I am talking about smallpox but everything that I said applies equally to anthrax and other medical situations.
	I believe I told your Lordships at Second Reading about a visit that I made to the United States earlier this year with the Civilian Affairs Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, on which I represent your Lordships. I was in California discussing these matters with one of the premier scientific organisations which make it their business to find technical ways of combating a terrorist attack of all kinds. I was told that at present in the United States 40,000 doctors, nurses and ambulance workers are vaccinated against smallpox, compared with our miserable figure of 270 or so emergency health workers.
	If we do have an attack of this sort, it could come totally out of the blue, without any warning. For some days, we might not even know that an attack had taken place until clinical symptoms began to appear among those unfortunate enough to contract whichever disease. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, wrote to me saying:
	"There is no evidence of a specific threat of smallpox at present".
	Of course there is not. I know that. We all know that. But cultures exist, although there are no cases of smallpox in the world at present and there have not been for many years, thank goodness. But, of course, cultures exist, some in fairly doubtful security conditions. It is perfectly clear—and it is understood by anyone who has studied this matter—that there is a real possibility of an attack of smallpox, anthrax or a similar dreadful disease.
	If the threat exists, one has to ask why the United States has reacted as it has and on the scale that it has, whereas here we seem to have done very little indeed. I know that privately the Government are very concerned that the scheme has not been much more widely taken up. That is a concern. There have been some stories about the effects of a smallpox vaccination. I note that in that letter of 7 September the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
	"Smallpox vaccine contains live vaccinia virus that can cause disease in those vaccinated, particularly those with reduced immunity".
	I was puzzled about that, so I asked a question of the Government about what evidence they have quantifying the risk of acquiring smallpox as a result of vaccination with live smallpox vaccine. On 11 October—this very week—I received a reply from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to a Written Question—HL4154—that I asked, in which he said:
	"There is no risk of acquiring smallpox as a consequence of being vaccinated with smallpox vaccine".—[Official Report, 11/10/04; col. WA 33.]
	I do not follow why I am told on the one hand that there is a risk and on the other hand that there is no risk.
	I am sorry to burden the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, with his own letter, but it is important in relation to this highly difficult and urgent matter. He said to me—this astonished me—in that same letter of 7 September:
	"It should be noted that even in an outbreak situation compulsory vaccination will not be permissible for emergency service personnel".
	I am bound to say that if that is true, that is an idiotic situation. If we have an outbreak and we have only 270 doctors, nurses and ambulance workers who have been prepared in advance for a smallpox attack, and it is not possible to undertake compulsory vaccination, we are living in a totally mad situation. Therefore, it is all the more important that the Government should have the power to require emergency service workers to be vaccinated against smallpox.
	I do not know what all the fuss and talk of risk is about, because I suspect that there are very few people sitting in your Lordships' House at the moment who have not, at some time in their lives, been vaccinated—many of us on frequent occasions—against smallpox. I do not understand. Only a relatively few years ago, if one went to various countries where there may have been a possibility of a smallpox outbreak, it was standard procedure. Many of us as children were vaccinated against smallpox as a routine so I cannot see why the Government sit back and say that there are all kinds of risks with regard to vaccination.
	I believe that, if the situation worsened, the Government should be able, at once and if necessary, to say, "We believe that the danger has escalated", and to use the necessary powers. I am not saying that immediately everyone in the emergency services should be vaccinated, but I believe that the Government should have the power. That does not mean that an emergency is about to occur, but the power should be available to the Government now.
	I turn to paragraph (b)—the final three paragraphs deal with more technical matters. As I have told your Lordships, I visited California earlier this year with a NATO group. We visited a remarkable company called SAIC in San Diego, southern California, where 40,000 people are employed in the production of items concerned with the protection of the civilian population, among a good many other things. There we saw a piece of equipment that was demonstrated to us, under the name of Vacis—I am sure that there are other similar technical systems in the world. A lorry or a container is put through a monitoring arch and one can see whether there are people or suspicious objects inside.
	I believe that the Government should have the power to insist that the authorities that control entry points into the United Kingdom should install equipment of that kind. The Government may already have such a power, but if not, I believe that they should have. Likewise, under paragraph (c) of the amendment, well known, well authenticated equipment is mentioned.
	I have here a file with definitions and specifications of all kinds of such equipment that are increasingly and widely used in the United States as precautionary measures. I am not talking about science fiction. It is possible to install equipment that will detect radiological material. I also believe that the Government should have the power to require authorities to install that equipment to discover whether radiological material is being brought into the country.
	Finally, on paragraph (d), the Government should have the power to require local authorities to install the kind of equipment—some static and some mobile—that can very quickly tell whether there are chemical substances in the environment that could be from a terrorist attack, such as nerve gas and other dreadful chemical substances about which we have been learning a good deal recently. Some of the equipment is hand held and some is static, but it can detect both chemical and biological substances.
	The important point about an attack, which could come out of the blue, is that one should know as quickly as possible what is being used and where, and whether it exists at all. That is the purpose of my amendment. As I said just now, perhaps some of these powers exist already. If they do, we can only hope that we shall be told so by the Minister today. It is very important that we know whether such powers exist.
	I am not asking the Minister to tell us specifically what technical equipment is in use in this country. It would perhaps be foolish of him to tell us. But privately I know that there is nowhere near as much equipment as there ought to be. Therefore, in preparation for the Report stage I hope he will tell us what powers exist in the hands of government to provide such things. If there are none—I suspect that there are not as many as there should be—we can reconsider the matter on Report.
	I am sorry to have gone on for so long but I feel passionately about this issue. I think it is essential to sound the warning. I have said before—and I say it again—if something dreadful were to happen, I am convinced that the Government would be open to the most tremendous criticism. Far be it from me to protect this Government from criticism, but in this case I think that it is essential to do so. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: I understand the reasoning and the good intentions behind this amendment. I suggest that paragraph (a) goes too far, although I am sure that there is much merit in paragraphs (b) (c) and (d). We are, after all, talking about civilians, who, by definition, are not subject to military discipline; and some of them are volunteers.
	Of course it is highly desirable that key personnel should volunteer to be vaccinated against smallpox, and I am sure that most would if they were encouraged to do so. But what about those with religious objections or those who on medical grounds may be sensitive to some of a vaccine's components? The noble Lord's amendment does not confine itself to smallpox vaccine; it could extend to some of the vaccines used in the Gulf War which can have much more serious side effects.
	What would happen if the noble Lord's amendment were agreed to as it stands and people refused to be vaccinated? Would they be compulsorily held down and vaccinated, would they be sacked if they were in paid employment, or would they be arrested and put on trial if they were volunteers? There is a lot of merit in part of the noble Lord's amendment, but not in paragraph (a).

Lord Elton: I rise because people may possibly think that my noble friend is a solitary alarmist. I think that he is much less than an alarmist, and I would go further than he does in two respects. First, I was sorry to hear him say that these steps were not needed immediately on the assumption that it would be possible to forecast when the risk of certain events became acute; but, as he said, they are quite likely to arrive out of a clear blue sky. I am certain that some of them are in preparation at this moment. Therefore, there is a degree of urgency about this, which needs to be borne in mind and reacted to.
	Secondly, in paragraphs (c) and (d) the list of possible noxious substances is incomplete. Paragraph (c) requires means of monitoring persons and so on for radiological material but not for chemical and biological, and in paragraph (d) my noble friend has left out radiological. There may be reasons for that, but it seems to me that this is an acutely important question. If the risk is real—and I think it is—the answer to it cannot be partial. That bears on what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just said. Those who are professionally in jobs that protect the public must be fully protected in order to qualify. Therefore, it seems necessary that there must be some compulsion.
	The question is different where the agency is voluntary. But again it is a question of whether an unprotected person who is required to deal with a chemical, or more particularly a biological, attack is qualified to carry out the function as a volunteer. But I am wholeheartedly behind my noble friend. I would say that the risk only diminishes in proportion to our preparedness to meet it. At the moment it is very great.

Lord Garden: I share the sense of urgency of the noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Elton, about the need for measures. We do not know when or if there will be a CBRN terrorist attack. But it is obviously a possibility in the new situation in which we find ourselves and we need to take precautions urgently.
	However, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Joping, breaks into two completely different sorts. One puts action on authorities to do things, which I totally support; the other makes a very difficult judgment about how much we should compel people in employment or even the voluntary services, and, if necessary, counter to health and safety regulations.
	I deal first with paragraphs (b) (c) and (d), which I support totally. I assume that the Government will go ahead with paragraphs (b) and (c) with all urgency. I hope that that is true, so that, as the technology becomes available, we can control the points of access for the various noxious materials that might come. Paragraph (d) is vital. We need to give guidance to local authorities on what scale of equipment they need. Some detection systems are still in their infancy. As the technologies come along, we shall get better detection systems. We need to make sure that local authorities are kept up to date with what they need to have as we improve this. So I support paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), but would very much emphasise the need to task local authorities with the sorts of scales of equipment needed.
	On paragraph (a) I think we are in very difficult territory. I take the case, for example, of when we sent our military off to fight a war in Iraq—in which at least the Prime Minister believed they would be exposed to biological and chemical weapons perhaps. We failed to give them the protection of air filters in their vehicles because we did not give enough equipment. Even then we left the administration of the various vaccines to informed consent. That was to a military force. I think that is right. In the end we must get the balance between the risks, and there are risks associated with taking vaccines and particularly with taking lots of vaccines.
	We have talked a lot about smallpox, but there are a whole range of potential biological warfare agents, some of which do not have vaccines which would give one much more than partial protection and some no protection at all. So, we would have a difficult decision as to which vaccines. We would have questions on what the ill effects might be and the consequences against the balance of risk if we are going to be attacked by that substance.
	It would be an enormous step against liberties to turn around to emergency services that we depend upon, and particularly volunteers, and say, "You are compelled and you become a criminal unless you accept this vaccine against a threat that one cannot be certain about". So I would support paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, but not paragraph (a).

Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may suggest that, having observed the Gulf War syndrome over many years, what went wrong, at least partly, was the need for haste in a very last minute decision. We are talking basically about the training and capacity of people to do their jobs who would be in the front line of the ambulance and fire services. We would not dream of sending them into battle without a gun, so why are we not prepared to say to them, "If you wish to do this, and be responsible and able when the time comes, you will have to decide now whether it is compatible with your conscience to accept this. If not, then we are very sorry you will not be very much use to us. We must find people who will".

Baroness Masham of Ilton: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, on bringing up this very serious matter today. Some of your Lordships may have watched the television programme a few weeks ago about the City of London which was not able to cope with decontamination. Because terrorism is a world problem, I should like to ask the Minister about the World Health Organisation's views on vaccination. There are such horrible things as plague and the new problem of severe acute respiratory syndrome, for which the vaccines are in laboratories and can escape, or people could manufacture them. So that is a real and serious problem. A few weeks ago, with the purple condoms in the other place, all the wrong things happened. People were supposed to stay in the Chamber; they rushed out. So we are not prepared. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is doing a service to the country, but I should like to know the view of the World Health Organisation on the matter.

Lord Hylton: I appreciate the thought and care that has gone into preparing this amendment. I just query whether paragraphs (c) and (d) may go a fraction too far by requiring every port and every local authority to have equipment of the kind mentioned. I urge the Government carefully to consider whether such equipment should be held centrally or regionally and to what extent it should be localised.

Lord Lucas: I very much support my noble friend, especially concerning biological terrorism. Chemical and nuclear attacks, although they can be exceptionally nasty to be subjected to, are essentially local. If someone took out the whole of London, that would just make a large hole in the map and the rest of the country would be able to carry on and repair the damage. If we have an outbreak of a serious infectious disease, our ports and airports will be closed against all traffic and incoming goods, because no one else will want us to export this stuff to them. That could be very hard for the nation to fight.
	So we have to be in tip-top condition to tackle an outbreak of a serious infectious disease and be able to master it in a short timescale. The only recent example of this that we have is foot and mouth disease and, because we were not prepared, the outbreak escalated and went on for a great deal longer than it should have. If that had been a human disease, given that culling is not an option—although it might be under Part 2, not in the form of a criminal penalty, but there does not seem to be anything to stop people being dropped into mass graves if they were suspected of having a disease—and we were cut off from supplies from outside, it would not be long before we became the equivalent of a house with a cross marked on the door in the days of the plague. We would be left to die or survive and someone might come round in a year's time to see if there was anything worth rescuing.
	So we must be able to react quickly. I think it is reasonable to expect that anyone who is going to make a serious attempt at biological terrorism will use an existing disease. It is difficult to create something that will propagate effectively in the human body that will have the desired effect in the right sort of timescale, which will transmit properly between one human and another, de novo and hope that it will work. It is much easier to start with something that you know transmits and develops properly in the human body and just give it a twist. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the experiment that was performed with mouse pox in Australia to make it much more virulent and resistant to vaccine.
	So it is not beyond the capabilities of an ordinary biological laboratory to create something that is seriously damaging. We should not think that well financed terrorists, such as Al'Qaeda, are incapable of doing that. There is no great control over the machinery or material needed to do it; the knowledge is spread very wide; and we already know that they are well equipped with people who were prepared to sacrifice their own lives to spread disease.
	We have to be able to react quickly, should such a thing hit us. If they choose a vector that is spread relatively slowly—if it is a water-borne disease, such as cholera, a food-borne disease or something such as anthrax, which essentially requires special conditions to spread in the human population—it will be containable. But if they use an airborne vector, such as smallpox or the flu, we are in real trouble. The only way to control that is to have a sufficient mass of people who are likely to be immune to the disease, trained to treat it and sufficiently close to the outbreak to be able to swamp it early. We would have to be lucky to do that. It should not involve a few hundred doctors; it ought to involve at least half of the doctor and nursing population.
	I agree with what other Members of the Committee have said: compulsion is probably inappropriate. But we absolutely ought to be aiming for any hospital to be able to put together a team effectively to isolate any of the common, well known infectious diseases very fast. That means having that level of immunity present and ready. Smallpox is the obvious example; there are others. We do not need to go to the extent that we do for battlefield protection, because in battles, there is the prospect of using organisms that essentially have a local or limited effect and are just debilitating, rather than fatal. We can probably deal with that in the ordinary course of events. We do not have to consider that many diseases, but we must protect against those that we know could be used against us and are the obvious vectors. We need to take the matter seriously and give ourselves the level of protection that we need, along the lines of my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Swinfen: I also support my noble friend's amendment. Can the Minister tell us whether these 200 or so medical personnel who are inoculated against smallpox are already in teams, so that they can deal with the problem together, or are they a group of individuals scattered loosely throughout the country? If they are the latter, they are of no real use at all. They need to be in teams to work together to control the disease and deal with those who are unfortunate enough to contract the disease themselves.

Baroness Buscombe: I want to be brief as there has been a very good debate on this excellent amendment. Indeed, I hope that the Minister has been listening hard, especially to my noble friend Lord Jopling, who is endeavouring to inject some realism into the Bill. These emergency powers are to be introduced into the world that we live in now. The amendment accurately reflects some of the real concerns that many people beyond your Lordships' House have because yes, the Bill is an enabling Bill, but it is not clear about what is now a vital response to prepare for real risks.
	I am especially pleased that my noble friend did not, as I was inclined to do, accept at face value the content of the letter dated 7 September, addressed to my noble friend, responding to the various important points raised by him on Second Reading. Indeed, I had been disinclined too strongly to support this amendment in the light of that letter, which mentioned the real difficulty of requiring individuals to be vaccinated against viruses, especially because the letter expressed concern about side-effects ranging from mild to fatal. So I am really pleased that my noble friend went further in his research and has now received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, making clear that there is no risk of acquiring smallpox as a consequence of vaccination.
	Clearly, there are risks, as the noble Lord, Lord Garden, said; I am not saying that there are not. However, I refer again to the need to inject some realism. I hope also that the noble Lord listened to my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. As always, she showed a great deal of common sense.
	We face a difficult situation. The letter of 7 September says that there is no clear possibility of an outbreak at the moment: how does anybody know? As my noble friend said, an attack could come out of the blue. We must be prepared, and we must do all that we can to be prepared, in a proportionate way. My concern is that the Bill is not injecting—if I can use that pun—enough insistence that we are preparing sufficiently for a possible emergency. I hope that the excellent comments that have been made by noble Lords around the Committee will be taken on board by the Minister.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: For the past 40-odd minutes, I have listened carefully to the comments made by all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. It has been an important, serious and thoughtful debate, and there have been some useful, not to say valuable, contributions.
	Over the past few days, in preparing for today, I have thought quite a lot about smallpox. I can remember my stepfather telling me, when I was a child, a fairly awful story. He was a soldier in the First World War and fought in the trenches and in north Africa. He told me how he had contracted smallpox during his time as a serviceman. As a child, I was horrified by his description. I can also recall being inoculated against smallpox as a child, in one of those mass immunisation programmes. Fortunately, my stepfather survived the experience—he was a strong man and enjoyed good health almost until the end—but I am well aware of the horror that lies behind the amendment. It resonates with me.
	Serious issues were raised in the debate. I hope to offer some reassurance to noble Lords who are concerned about the issue. I hope also to set the record straight with regard to some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, although I think that some of the issues that he raised are important and require further thought and clarification.
	I cannot accept the noble Lord's opening comments about how the United Kingdom is severely unprepared. I cannot identify with his suggestion that we focus our interest on civil contingencies and emergencies only in the Bill. The Bill is but one part of the activity that the Government have been urgently involved in over many years, particularly in the past four or five years. We have been thinking through the implications of various emergency scenarios and contingencies. It is not that we have been idle; we have not. I have statistics that suggest a high level of investment and increased thought about the urgent preparations necessary to counter the serious threat of the things that could be visited on us by terrorism or other means.
	I share wholeheartedly the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Garden, has that there must be urgency about such issues. The Government are and have been seized of that, but in this difficult area, which involves civil liberties, we must strike a balance and ensure that our response is proportionate in the circumstances. I would argue that that is where we are.
	The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, probe us on our preparations for dealing with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack. As the noble Lord said, he raised the issue—rightly—at Second Reading, and we have had some correspondence on it. I hope that, latterly, some of the points that I made—certainly those in my second letter to him—have reassured him on some points, at least, if not all.
	The Government cannot accept the amendment, and I shall set out the reasons why. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, suggests that we amend the Bill to enable Ministers to require local responders to give compulsory smallpox vaccinations to staff. The noble Lord also suggests overriding health and safety and, potentially, human rights legislation, if it proves necessary. As I said, I have set out in correspondence the reasons why the Government have chosen not to go down that road. I shall run through those arguments for the benefit of the Committee.
	Smallpox has been declared eradicated by the World Health Organisation, which advises that vaccination against smallpox should cease. The side-effects of the vaccine are well known, and, in the absence of the disease, it is argued that the risks outweigh any potential health benefits. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, an independent expert committee that advises the Secretary of State for Health, emphasised the need for the response to any threat of the deliberate release of smallpox to be proportionate. The Government have acted on the advice that a small cohort of healthcare workers in each region should be vaccinated in advance of an outbreak of smallpox.

Lord Elton: Can the Minister be more specific? What were the terms of reference within which the committee that advised the Government that only a small cohort should be vaccinated tendered that advice? What was it told about the purpose of the vaccination? Was it told that it was a question of maintaining the National Health Service in the face of a full-scale attack, or was it asked for what it thought would be a modest insurance against the accidental release of the disease?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord will appreciate that, as I speak across the Dispatch Box today, I do not have access to the terms in which those questions were asked. However, I am happy to try to find some more background information, so that I can satisfy the noble Lord. He raises an important point.
	Owing to the health risks, we believe that the measures can be carried out only on a voluntary basis; the noble Lord, Lord Garden, used the phrase "informed consent". Volunteers underwent rigorous screening to minimise the risk of an adverse reaction, and restrictions were put on their work for a period after the vaccination, to prevent live transmission of the virus used in the vaccine.

Lord Swinfen: How long after vaccination does it take effect, so that the individual is protected? If there is an outbreak and it takes time for the vaccination to become effective, a larger number of people must be vaccinated in advance. If it takes a week or a fortnight, there could be serious consequences.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is a good technical question, which I cannot answer today. I am happy to ensure that we undertake some further research on that point. Earlier, the noble Lord asked about the distribution throughout the UK of the teams that have had the vaccination. I shall write to the noble Lord on that matter too.
	There is, at present, no evidence of a specific threat of smallpox. The Department of Health's national smallpox plan envisages only "blue light" emergency service cover, so that vaccination would be offered only if the threat increased. We take the view that it is not desirable or perhaps necessary to make the vaccination of emergency service workers obligatory at present.

Lord Lucas: What exercise have the Government undertaken to simulate a smallpox outbreak and establish the number of staff required by a hospital to contain it—presuming that the first vector was hostile and therefore determined not to be found, so that all one started finding was the people who had been infected, who might be numerous? I am surprised that there are only 200 such people scattered around the country. Since we have around 10 regions, presumably the Government think that we can contain it with 20 personnel at any one time. That seems a very small number for dealing with an infected population which may number some hundreds.
	Secondly, can the noble Lord quantify the risks attendant on the smallpox vaccination? So far the only figure that we have is the one provided by my noble friend, courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, when he says that the risk is zero. The noble Lord keeps saying that there are these risks but he has not provided any figures, proportions or statistics on which we can base our understanding. Could we have a full answer on that?

Lord Swinfen: I am sorry to bother the noble Lord. Theoretically, smallpox has been eradicated from the world but anthrax has not. Anthrax is a far more likely method of attack. Will the noble Lord also include in his answers on smallpox the same answers on anthrax?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am obliged to noble Lords for their questions.
	The Department of Health has undertaken—

The Earl of Onslow: I was fascinated to see that, on being asked two questions, the noble Lord put his head down and continued to read from his brief as if nothing had happened in the Chamber. I am sorry if my astonishment was so noticeable; I did not mean to make it public.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that I would provide the noble Earl with an opportunity to ask his question from a non-sedentary position.
	I was about to respond to the point on exercises for smallpox scenarios. There is an active exercise plan through live and tabletop exercises. For example, my understanding is that the Global Mercury exercise tested international communications in the case of a smallpox outbreak. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked me about the health risks following a vaccination programme. I shall try to provide as much information as possible.
	Even if those with known contraindications to vaccination are excluded from a mass vaccination programme, it is still predicted that one per million of those not previously vaccinated might die as a result of the vaccine, with a further 20,000 suffering severe complications. Also, because of the disruptive effect on the blood supply, those vaccinated must be excluded from giving blood for a defined period. Post-vaccination, additional deaths could also be expected due to a shortage of blood. That is the best information that I can provide the noble Lord with today. I shall have to include a response on anthrax, about which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked, in the body of correspondence to which I have already committed myself. It would be unwise of me to do otherwise.
	I shall return to the noble Lord's concern about the United Kingdom civil authorities' capability to detect and deal with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) incidents. As the noble Lord explained, his amendments would enable Ministers to require local responders to purchase equipment designed to identify the presence of CBRN material and to deploy that equipment at ports and airports.
	At Second Reading, the noble Lord made clear his view that the Government were being complacent about the threats we face. I do not accept that, but I think that I can offer some assurance that this is not the case. We have undertaken a very busy key capabilities programme, which identifies the generic capabilities that underpin the UK's resilience to disruptive challenges, however they are caused, and ensures that those capabilities are developed. There are 17 such capabilities, including dealing with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material. The United Kingdom counter-terrorism framework has been enhanced through increased investment in operational activity and new legislative measures. However, the Home Office leads a programme of work to ensure that we continue to build our capacity to deal with CBRN events, should they occur.
	The emergency services have the best detection equipment currently available, and the Government are working with them to develop that capability still further in line with their specific needs. The police service has a well developed capability in this area, which is being strengthened through specialist training at the National Police Training Centre. The fire service has the New Dimension programme for the fire and rescue services. It incorporates the procurement of radiation monitoring equipment for deployment at incidents involving radiation to give an early on-site indication of the release of hazardous radioactive material or radioactivity.
	The Government have put in place Programme Cyclamen, which is designed to screen for the illicit movement of radioactive materials by traffic entering the United Kingdom by sea, air or through the Channel Tunnel. The screening programme includes container and road freight, post and fast parcels, vehicles and passengers, and makes use of fixed and mobile detection units. The Government are not complacent at all about the threat of CBRN terrorism. They are committed to continue to invest in the capabilities that our assessment of risk shows we need.
	I have dealt with the point about the risk from vaccination, but it is worth dwelling on some of the observations made about our preparedness. To offer some reassurance, I wish to quote the director-general of MI5, who in June 2003 said:
	"Our systems for terrorist protection are the envy of the world".
	Kelvin Laybourne, the chair of the CBRN professional-issues group of the Emergency Planning Society wrote in the Guardian in February last year:
	"It is important to realise that . . . [CBRN attacks] are extreme scenarios and the likelihood of this happening to you is probably very low".
	One can never be complacent about these issues. It is vital that the Government have not only the powers but also the will to tackle them. The measures that we have put in place over the past few years and the added investment that we have made, not just through the distribution of new grants to local government in our previous spending-round assessment, but in the daily accretion of expertise within all the emergency services and the training that we have put in place, demonstrate our commitment to deal with these issues.
	I certainly support the intent behind the amendment: to ensure that we get it right and that we go on working and investing in this area to offer the maximum reassurance and capability. We will need to have that to protect against some of the threats that may confront the country in the future.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he could answer my question about the views of the World Health Organisation.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I recall, I observed that the World Health Organisation had advised that vaccination against smallpox should cease because of its eradication. I am not sure whether that matches entirely the noble Baroness's question but if it does not we shall have another look for any useful or valuable information.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: I am interested in the much wider aspect, including plague, SARS, anthrax and other issues apart from smallpox.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I appreciate that. I will go back over the question to see what further information we can provide.

Viscount Goschen: Before my noble friend Lord Jopling responds, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister could clarify whether he really feels that the small cohort of 140-odd doctors and 140-odd nurses is the right number of people. Is it just difficult to get more people vaccinated? This really comes to the crux of the issue about whether people should be forced to be vaccinated or whether it should be done on a voluntary basis. Would the noble Lord like to see more doctors and nurses vaccinated than are currently, or not? Have the Government tried as hard as they can to increase that number, or is the Minister really saying, "No, 140 doctors and nurses is approximately the right number"? If the noble Lord could be clear about that, we could have a much clearer discussion about whether or not compulsion was required.

Lord Lucas: I was puzzled by the figures that the noble Lord gave me in response to the dangers of the smallpox vaccine. Is he really saying that in the days when all of us received this vaccine 50 children were dying a year from getting it and that one child in 50 who was given it had some kind of serious damage as a result? By serious damage, I am assuming something like blindness or bits dropping off rather than just an odd upset tummy.
	I would like the historical data on the damage done by the smallpox vaccination to which we were all submitted. I would very much like to have the details of what the Minister means by "serious complications". Those words can get twisted one way or the other, which we will come on to later in another context.
	I am also fascinated by the remark made by, I think, the head of MI5 that our systems for protecting against a CBRN attack are the envy of the world. Besides the fact that they sound remarkably like the boasts of the builders of the "Titanic", I am puzzled as to how they can be the envy of the world when no one in England, let alone the world, knows what they are.

Lord Swinfen: With the supposed eradication of smallpox, are medical students and junior doctors still taught how to diagnose and treat that disease?

Baroness Park of Monmouth: I have a very minor point. In the days when I was serving in Africa, every time one went to the Congo one was required by the authorities to have a smallpox vaccination: so I must have had about eight, quite apart from those that I had as a child. I can assure noble Lords that I got nothing from it but a sore arm.

Lord Elton: The Minister's job, of course, is to be reassuring. He has a public duty not to cause general alarm; he has a political duty to show the Government in a good light. But that is a very dangerous position to be in. The most chilling words that the noble Lord uttered were, "Well, there is no risk" of various things, particularly a smallpox attack.
	How does he know that there is no risk? We know that live vaccine exists. We know that the World Health Organisation has said that the disease has been eradicated, but that is only on the hypothesis that no one wishes it to be revived. The fact is that there are people who wish it to be revived.
	In 1939 when the war began, there was a period that I well remember—perhaps the noble Lord does too—which we came to call the "phoney war" because not very much seemed to affect us. I have a nasty feeling that people are expecting that to happen again. We are in the phoney war now. The war has been started: it just has not hit us. Therefore, if the Government really think that there is no risk, I think that the risk is very much greater than it need be. I hope that my noble friend will come back at the next stage with his amendment, perhaps separating the issue of vaccination from the other issues which are equally, but differently, important.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I will try as best I can to answer the various questions that noble Lords have asked because they deserve a serious response. On the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, obviously it would be desirable if we could ensure that we have greater capability with the numbers of those who are vaccinated to perform their role within the teams. I shall go back and check more precisely the data that exist on that issue. I want to ensure that everyone is well advised on that particular point.
	I quoted from, I think, Kelvin Laybourne, with regard to CBRN attacks and extreme scenarios. My point was that this risk was—I quote—"probably very low". I quoted also the World Health Organisation with regard to the level of smallpox internationally, which says that it has been declared eradicated. I accept the point that it is possible for people to develop the cultures and to hold the virus and so on, and for it to be exercised in the way in which noble Lords have described.
	In the absence of the disease in society, obviously the risk is of a lower order. Any assessment in that field has to be about risk and hierarchy of risk. It is thought that this is of a lower order of threat and risk, although, of course, we must guard against it.

Lord Lucas: The question of risk is rather like the difference between coal-fired power stations and nuclear-fired power stations. Yes, nuclear-fired power stations are much less risky than coal ones in the ordinary day-to-day damage that they do to people. But if they are going to do someone some damage, they are going to do a lot of people some very serious damage. That is rather the situation that we are in now.
	We impose much stricter controls on nuclear power stations than we do on coal ones. That is not because we are worried about the day-to-day level of damage, but because we want to make sure that nothing catastrophic happens. The same ought to apply here. Yes, it is a very low risk, but it is a very low risk of a very nasty event.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Of course, the noble Lord is right: it is. I might be able to help your Lordships' House by providing some more details with regard to emergency services preparedness. We have some 360 mobile decontamination units around the country for use by ambulance service and hospital accident and emergency departments. As part of our programme, we have distributed some 7,250 personal protection suits to key health workers. To improve stocks held by hospitals, some 2,500 additional suits have been stockpiled. Some 5,000 police officers are now CBRN trained. There are 80 new fire service vehicles and 190 purpose-built decontamination units, each capable of handling some 200 people an hour for England and Wales. We have distributed some 4,400 new gastight suits for firefighters. That is all part of our resilience programme.
	As I said, we have invested much in counter measures and have enhanced our preparedness. I accept that there is clearly more to do. Over the next few years our programmes will ensure that that work is undertaken. It is perhaps worth mentioning that following the April 2003 Budget we invested some £330 million for the next three years for counter-terrorism measures; some £85 million was allocated in 2002–03 to the NHS for medical counter measures and equipment, including personal protective equipment; and some £56 million has been made available to the fire and rescue services for the mass decontamination phase of the New Dimension programme in which they are performing an important part.
	That gives some figures and some indication of the types of activities that are being undertaken as part of our resilience, preparedness and hardening in this particular and difficult field. I have tried to provide as much information as I can during this debate. I am grateful for all of the questions, even the more awkward ones to which I have not been able to provide an immediate response. I shall try to pick up in further correspondence those issues that noble Lords have found particularly telling in order to elucidate and illuminate on them.

Lord Jopling: This matter has taken up about one hour of our time. I hope very much that it is time well spent. I hope that the Government have taken on board the wide concerns caused by what I still believe are the very wide gaps in preparation for a terrorist attack. I think that we are all grateful to the Minister for his responses in as far as they went. He has promised that he will respond to the concerns expressed. It is very important that we see the responses to all the questions in good time before Report so that we can reflect on both what he said today and his response to the questions that he has been unable to answer.
	I had hoped to be able to help my noble friend in providing the answer that the Minister could not give regarding the time lag before a vaccination becomes effective, but unfortunately I have left the paper with the information on it up in my room and I have not had a chance to go and get it. None the less, my noble friend has made a very good point.

Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend, but I think that the whole Committee ought to be given the answer rather than just myself.

Lord Jopling: That is right, because he has raised an immensely important issue. If, let us say, an anthrax or smallpox attack did take place, there would be a lag before anyone knew it had even happened and another lag during which people are vaccinated and their resistance becomes effective, by which time we could have a major epidemic on our hands. I repeat, this is a very important issue.
	The last point I want to make to the Minister is that I have heard a rumour in the corridors that because of the time to be taken up by consideration of the Hunting Bill over the next few weeks, it could be that this Bill will be withdrawn. I most passionately urge the Government not to withdraw the Bill. I have criticised the Government before over the long delay between the original Second Reading and this stage. It is urgent that these matters are dealt with. Most of the measures in the Bill are welcome and acceptable and I certainly support most of them. However, we have not yet dealt properly with these matters.
	We must reflect on what the Minister has said in response and consider his further answers. We can then come back to the matter on Report. My noble friend Lord Elton suggested that it might be wise to separate paragraph (a) of my amendment from what is set out in the other three paragraphs, and I think I might do that. I hope that I will be able to have discussions with those of my colleagues who have spoken. I am most grateful to them for what they have said. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 25 to 38 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Elton: I thought that we were about to hold a debate on clause stand part, and I wanted to come in at the end of it with a point about the drafting of this clause, in particular the last subsection which I find quite extraordinary. In effect it applies to Scottish Ministers' particular requirements which otherwise apply to a Minister of the Crown. It states:
	"Subsection (5) shall have effect in relation to subsection (4) as it has effect in relation to subsection (3), but as if—".
	What that means is that the Scots shall do the same as the British Minister except for the following, and then you have to trace back through a whole series of subsections and paragraphs.
	Surely it would be much simpler for the user of this Bill to have a subsection setting out directly the requirements placed on Scottish Ministers? This is internal legislation by reference. Normally legislation by reference states that a part of another Act shall apply in certain circumstances, modified in some way. You have to have the two Acts to hand to work it out. This is easier because you need only two subsections, but it is totally unnecessary and, I should have thought, rather difficult to draft.
	If the Minister has time between now and Report, and if the parliamentary draftsmen are not at quite their usual full stretch, will they consider redrafting subsection (6) so that it is more user-friendly? This is a small request, but if it suggests an approach to drafting that could be imported into all our legislation, life for many people would be a great deal easier.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall not make any promises, but I will ask the question. It is quite right that it has been put to me.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 39:
	After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:—
	"DUTY TO ASSESS, PLAN AND ADVISE: SECRETARIES OF STATE
	(1) Each Secretary of State shall—
	(a) from time to time assess the risk of an emergency occurring,
	(b) from time to time assess the risk of an emergency making it necessary or expedient for him to perform any of his functions,
	(c) maintain plans for the purpose of ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, that if an emergency occurs he is able to continue to perform his or its functions,
	(d) maintain plans for the purpose of ensuring that if an emergency occurs or is likely to occur he is able to perform his functions so far as necessary or desirable for the purpose of—
	(i) preventing the emergency,
	(ii) reducing, controlling or mitigating its effects, or
	(iii) taking other action in connection with it,
	(e) consider whether an assessment carried out under paragraph (a) or (b) makes it necessary or expedient for him to add to or modify plans maintained under paragraph (c) or (d),
	(f) arrange for the publication of all or part of assessments made and plans maintained under paragraphs (a) to (d), in so far as publication is not undesirable, for the purpose of—
	(i) preventing an emergency,
	(ii) reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or
	(iii) enabling other action to be taken in connection with an emergency,
	(g) co-ordinate his actions with other Secretaries of State and in particular with any Secretary of State who may be designated from time to time as having particular responsibility for co-ordination,
	(h) co-operate with persons and bodies listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 1 in their performance of their duties under this bill, in particular their rehearsals for dealing with an emergency, and
	(i) ensure that persons and bodies listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 1, all other Secretaries of State, and (insofar as it is not undesirable) the public are aware of the role that he will play in dealing with emergencies."

Lord Lucas: Nothing in this part of the Bill binds central government to play their part in civil contingencies, although obviously their part will be absolutely vital. You cannot react at the local level to something that requires national expertise and resources to deal with without having access to the right bit of central government. Some emergencies, such as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, essentially become matters for central government because they are so widespread. It therefore seems evident that not only must central government be prepared, they must also be properly rehearsed, as must the interface between them and the other agencies likely to be involved in dealing with an emergency.
	Someone in each county council has to know who is at the other end of the line when they encounter a particular set of circumstances. They must get to know the person and have worked through the process of understanding what they are capable of and what to expect from the relevant ministry. That is what rehearsal gives you: an ability to respond very quickly to an emergency, but we do not have that in the Bill.
	We have a vague promise that the Government will do something. A useful document entitled The Lead Government Department and its role—Guidance and Best Practice sets out what the Government say they will do, although I must say that it is pretty thin on the process of how the lead government department is to be established in any circumstances. It is clear that there will be a long and difficult argument over any question regarding which government department should take this on, which will not be in the best interests of handling an emergency quickly.
	Moreover, as a Parliament we do not have an easy way of holding the Government to account for how well central government are doing in their preparations for dealing with an emergency. So far as I can see, nothing has been set out by way of commitments to do anything in particular. Nothing is set out by way of an auditing, monitoring or reporting strategy which we can latch on to, as did my noble friend in his previous amendment when he asked the Government how they would react to a smallpox outbreak started by 200 people scattered throughout the UK.
	We can seek this information in a random way by asking Parliamentary Questions, and no doubt the Freedom of Information Act would be helpful. However, it is inevitable that for this to work properly the Government should be playing their full part. If they are doing that, they might as well be tied into the same mechanisms set out in the Bill as everyone else. The position will then be quite clear. I beg to move.

Lord Garden: In rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment No. 39, which would be a sensible addition to the Bill, I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 82 grouped with it. My amendment looks at a particular department; that is, the Ministry of Defence. I have singled out that department because we are all aware that the MoD and the armed services have particular capabilities that will be enormously important in the event of any large-scale emergency.
	As it is at the moment, we are working on a system that dates back over many years, one in which we have military aid to the civil power and military aid to the civil community. It dates back to dealing with the sorts of emergencies that build up over a period of time, yet as we have already discussed this morning, things could happen quite fast with the kind of terrorist attacks we are talking about.
	The Ministry of Defence White Paper on the preparations that are made refers to fairly limited areas. The Civil Contingency Reserve Force, which is effectively a TA organisation, was described in the previous White Paper as being not yet fully up to strength and its coverage patchy. Can the Minister say whether that situation has improved, particularly given the number of TA personnel now required to be in Iraq rather than ready for an emergency in this country?
	Earlier today, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, asked about water purification. The Minister replied that certainly the Ministry of Defence has the equipment for a civil contingency in the UK but its use would depend on military priorities. That is really not good enough. We need to ensure that the Ministry of Defence is fully engaged in all the preparations and that local authorities know what they can expect.
	It may be that some of the priorities of Ministry of Defence action ought to be centred on providing capabilities that could be rapidly deployed throughout the country, given that it has available the protective equipment, the manpower and, particularly, the helicopter transport. It is not good enough to say that it will provide whatever happens to be available on the day. For that reason, I would particularise the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in terms of specifying that the Ministry of Defence should be one of the agencies involved in this.

Baroness Buscombe: I support both amendments. The Bill as currently drafted requires us to take too much for granted in terms of what the Government are supposed to be doing.

Lord Condon: I support the spirit and the motivation behind both amendments. On Monday of this week I spent a full day with the Chief Constable of Kent, the Chief Fire Officer of Kent and the Chief Ambulance Officer of Kent to remind myself of the state of preparedness on these issues. There is a real sense of urgency in the blue light services to improve their preparedness.
	As the Minister said earlier, there has been real progress recently in equipment, preparedness, training and so on, but there is still a hole in the provisions. I do not think that there is yet enough reassurance that the Government themselves have the mechanisms to reassure people of how they have made progress and their urgency in relation to these issues.
	As a member of the Joint Committee involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, I was reassured by much of the government evidence that we received. But on the issue of the Government's own responsibility to be prepared, there is still more scope for reassurance. There is a danger that the Government try to say that the debate is all or nothing: either you have a homeland security department, which they reject, or you rely exclusively on the status quo.
	There is room for a middle ground. There may not be a need in this country for a department of homeland security, but there is scope for the Government to be put into a framework of some kind which builds on and enhances the current provisions, so that not only your Lordships' House and another place but the country at large can have more confidence in the preparations that are being made. I invite the Minister to give some reassurance about how the spirit and motivation behind these two amendments will be remade to this House.

Lord Elton: I support the two amendments for the reasons already given and because many of the potential emergencies that threaten will have trans-regional effects. There is a real need for a central co-ordinating initiative from the Government themselves.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Garden, I was surprised to see no reference to the Armed Services under the emergency services because the Territorial Army is, in effect, such a service on occasion. The noble Lord mentioned that the TA is partly engaged in Iraq and, indeed, in Afghanistan. What he did not mention is that key personnel of particular ranks were taken out for this purpose and that what is left behind is not a regiment or a battalion but a cadre. Therefore some attention has to be paid to the effectiveness of the capability and the chain of command in those Territorial Army units which will be called up for use as emergency services in support of the civil power.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I, too, support the thrust of these amendments. I hope the Minister will not fall back on the fact that, at this stage, we are dealing with what I would call small-scale emergencies which are more local and more susceptible to local planning, which is the effect of this part of the Bill.
	It is absolutely fundamental that there should be a clearly understood relationship between those who produce the emergency plans. This, perforce, will involve, if not central government departments directly, certainly central government departments which are largely devolved across the country in any event. They may well be directly affected, not only by the plans but also by the events giving rise to the plans.
	It is essential that this relationship is clearly understood. It has always been clear to me that the Government have a considerable executive responsibility in this field, but the relationship is certainly not clearly spelt out in the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been a useful debate because it enables me to spell out how we see the role of central government and, importantly, the relationship that the arrangements have with the MoD and its part in the overall picture. I was particularly grateful for the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who said, quite accurately, that we have made a great deal of progress in this field over the past few years.
	In part, that has been in reaction to the fact that we have had a number of national situations which have required a national response to different kinds of emergencies. Flooding, the particular problems with oil distribution and, of course, foot and mouth placed contingency pressures on the way in which the Government worked. That has forced us to think anew about how the structures interrelate to each other and how they pull together. Important lessons have been learnt from that and we have been assessing how we can continue that programme of improvement.
	The amendments go very much to the heart of the crucial issue of how to ensure that central government pulls its weight in an emergency. For the reasons I shall outline, the Government cannot accept these well spirited amendments. However, because of the way in which we have set up our systems and the way in which they work and will develop, Clause 2 sets out the civil protection duties the Bill will impose on local respondents. These amendments would extend those duties to central government departments.
	Amendment No. 39 would also add additional duties on central government to ensure good internal co-ordination, good co-ordination between central government and local responders, and also to inform the public about its role in relation to emergencies. Obviously I am aware that there is support for a formal duty on central government to be included in the Bill and that there is a perception that central government need to raise their game on emergency planning and to communicate better what its role is. We can all agree with that aim and that objective.
	But I would argue that it is not necessary to use legislation to achieve that. Although I see and understand the direction in which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in particular, seeks to take us, I am not sure that it would be possible to craft a meaningful duty to this effect.
	It is right that I should first address the issue of necessity. We can all agree that by the end of the 1990s, central government planning arrangements were not what they should have been after a decade or so of relative freedom from the kind of major national emergencies that were so much more prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s. Arrangements were exposed by the major flooding of 2000, by the fuel crisis and by the foot and mouth epidemic.
	There has, as is commonly agreed, been a change in the quality of contingency planning in central government since 2001. The Government have put in place exactly the sort of arrangements that I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is seeking. A clear operational centre has been established within the Cabinet Office to ensure coherence and co-ordination across government in both planning and response. That operational centre is supported by horizon scanning risk assessment and capability.
	Individual departments take responsibility for planning for response to emergencies which occur within their field of responsibility. The division of tasks between departments is clearly set out in the Home Secretary's statement on lead government departments. This is consistent with our position that, in principle, responsibilities in relation to emergencies should sit with those organisations which have general policy responsibility. For example, if the DTI has responsibility for oil and gas supplies on a day-to-day basis, we believe that it is best placed to build in contingency plans and has the maximum expertise, should something go wrong. This approach ensures that we are mainstreaming resilience as an issue within all government departments.
	We have also taken steps to ensure that departments all fulfil their responsibilities. That is why The Lead Government Department and its role—Guidance and Best Practice was published by the Cabinet Office in March of this year. That document describes the key processes and disciplines necessary in planning for and responding to crises for which they are either the nominated lead or have key responsibilities to act during the progress of a crisis. It also describes how these processes will be monitored and, to take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, audited in order to achieve a uniformly high standard of planning and preparation.
	To ensure that their contingency planning arrangements are robust, the Government have put in place a co-ordinated cross-government exercise programme. The programme tests systematically the range of lead government department responsibilities, including the devolved Administrations, the regional tier and local responders. The programme covers a wide range of contingencies—not just terrorism but also accidents, natural disasters, and human and animal diseases. All this has been achieved without a duty but with the strong commitment of Ministers.
	I can see why it might be argued that in the future another Government might attach a lower priority to this issue unless they could usefully be bound by a clear legislative duty. In theory, while this might appear attractive, it is in practice, we think, unworkable. While there are precedents for imposing high-level duties on central government, the Government do not consider that it is possible to do so in this particular case.
	Central government exercise a huge range of functions, ranging from legislative functions, delivery of essential services, management of the public finances and advisory services. Each department has different functions and exercises its functions in a different way. As a consequence of central government's diversity, any duty would have to be extremely broad.
	We solved this problem in relation to the local response through a heavy reliance on regulation and guidance. There is sufficient commonality between the functions exercised by local responders that it is possible to impose a single statutory duty on all of them. But if we apply the same principle here, central government could be regulating and guiding themselves. Essentially, a future government would be free to take a narrow interpretation of any such duty on themselves. So, as is the case now, the key factor in terms of central government's efforts would not be the shape of any duty but the level of ministerial commitment. That is why we do not believe that a meaningful contingency planning duty—one that would actually change behaviour—could be imposed on central government. Nevertheless, we are considering what options there might be to offer more reassurance to Parliament and to the wider public that the performance of central government will continue to improve.
	I hope that that explanation offers some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on his amendment.
	I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Garden. Again, this does not cover the Ministry of Defence category 1 responder, and we are not drawn to it. The emergency services will deal with almost all emergencies within normal response arrangements. I think that we can all accept that. Where an incident stretches the resources and personnel of the emergency service, it can request military assistance under the well established military aid to the civil authority arrangements.
	The Armed Forces' organisation, skills, equipment, training and flexible command and control structure make them an extremely valuable national resource. They have a long and well rehearsed record of providing support to the civil authorities during emergencies. The fire dispute, flooding and foot and mouth are examples of the assistance that military personnel give to the local authorities and civil authorities and where they provided aid. However, it is important to keep sight of the limited role the military play in dealing with those civil emergencies. The MoD plays a supporting—not leading—role in emergency planning and response. It is not at all clear why it should have the full range of civil protection duties the Bill imposes on front-line responders. That goes to the heart of the issue about proportionality, something on which the noble Lord has reflected in previous amendments.
	We have a well established and entirely proper principle in the UK of civil primacy. The Armed Forces are not—and, I argue, should not be—the first responder to incidents. We have many more specially trained, specially equipped personnel in the emergency services. The Armed Forces may have a role to play in a small number of incidents, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of emergencies are dealt with by the civilian services without recourse to military assistance. Let us not play down the excellent work and high standards of those civilian local responders.
	We need to remember that, where required, existing military aid arrangements are well established and work well. The Armed Forces are closely linked into civil resilience arrangements and the Strategic Defence Review: A New Chapter enhancements, like the creation of the civil contingencies reaction forces, will enhance their ability to respond in the event of an emergency.
	The MoD is fully integrated into the national exercise programme and regular and reserve forces participate in a range of exercises with emergency services to test joint working arrangements. Ultimately, this engagement must be on a flexible basis—the same flexibility which is one of the great strengths of the Armed Forces.
	This is not a case of the Armed Forces shirking their role on the home front, as all the evidence points to their active engagement wherever necessary. It is a more a reflection of their limited engagement and the competence of civilian responders.
	I hope that, having heard that explanation, the noble Lord will feel convinced that we have a flexible series of arrangements that have been successful in the past—I do not think there is any argument about that in terms of giving support to the civil powers—and that we try to exercise that reaction and response, integration and involvement, on a proportionate basis. For those reasons, we are not drawn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Garden, today.

Lord Garden: I am not terribly satisfied with the Minister's answer. We are talking about new arrangements for new emergencies rather than the same old system. I shall not score cheap debating points over whether the firemen's strike, the fuel tanker strike or foot and mouth needed the Army to sort them out—we all know that they did. But those were different. We are talking about the possibilities of a large-scale terrorist attack within these emergencies.
	It is quite clear from reading its publications that the Ministry of Defence does not see that as one of its leading or even important tasks. It has made two sets of provisions. One is the civil contingency reserve force which, as we have said, is incomplete and has some problem in responding rapidly. The other is the standby of air defence aircraft against a possible hostile incoming commercial airliner, which is important.
	We have a unique resource in the military which could provide capabilities against these contingencies, the assessment of which is that the risk is low but the consequences are high. I am seeking to have a duty put on the Ministry of Defence to provide some capability that could be used. Although I shall not press the amendment today, I shall come back to this issue later.

Lord Lucas: I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Garden, about the position which the Government are asking us to accept. It is not an adequate response to the challenges that face us. I do not draw much comfort either from the Minister's response to me. Although I see that nothing is to be gained by going straight ahead on this matter, the comfort that he offered by undertaking to look at how Parliament would be given some input was extremely thin.
	Would the Minister's department be prepared to look constructively on the suggestion that an annual report be made to Parliament on these matters? We really need to know how well the Government are rehearsed and how seriously they are taking these issues. An unrehearsed government department, however full it is of expertise, is absolutely useless. As we saw in the foot and mouth outbreak, it did not know what to do at the beginning. When it finally got around to doing something, it was far too late. If it and other government departments had been rehearsing, they would have known what the Army's capabilities were and they would have known to bring them in earlier. The whole outbreak would have involved much less death and disruption than it did.

Lord Elton: Parliament has a duty to see that these defences are in working order. One way of doing that is by putting that duty into statute. That would save an awful lot of parliamentary time, because, otherwise, Parliament will have to monitor the risks year by year, either by some formal process, such as my noble friend has just suggested, or by some even less adequate system that is dreamt up on the hoof when one Member of this House or the other decides that it is time to have another look. We are discussing the lifeblood of the nation. It has to be protected; we are the people to see that it is done. We are asking the Government to convince us that the machinery is in place to see that it is done without our constantly looking at it.

Lord Lucas: I should like to know before Report what information the Government envisage will be routinely available to Members of Parliament and the public about the operation of this process within central government. The other consequence of not including this kind of clause in the Bill is that it is unclear what rights local authorities and others have when they wish to tie in government departments to their rehearsals.
	Let us suppose that a local authority is rehearsing an outbreak of some new and virulent disease of wheat and it decides that it needs to destroy 10 square miles of crops. Who does it ring up? What does it ask for? One obviously has to rehearse that. Understanding what one has to do involves the entire approval mechanism set out in Part 2. One must have the right, if that is what one decides to rehearse, to require central government to play a part in that rehearsal. It is not enough for Defra, for instance, to say, "No, we can't be bothered to help you. Look at the letter we sent to some other council 15 months ago giving them a rough idea of what we might do if we are ever asked about something like that". A duty has to be placed on central government to play a part. Many emergencies will involve their information resources, especially if that emergency requires a Part 2 response. One of the reasons why Part 2 is so widely drawn is that it provides a rapid response to all kinds of situations.
	Every local authority will have to know how to use Part 2; that is, in which circumstances it applies; to whom it should apply; what information it needs to provide in support; how the whole thing works. To provide an effective response to that kind of application, central government have to rehearse. Unless a clear duty is placed on government to play their part in rehearsals, how will a local authority get them to participate when it needs them to do it?
	If the Minister cannot respond now, I should like him to write to me before Report. On the question whether the Bill will have the time that it needs, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Jopling, can the Minister confirm that, if required—because the Bill has the right—the Government will apply to carry over?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I will not speculate about carry-over, but we are committed to ensuring that your Lordships' House has more than adequate time for active consideration of the Bill and those discussions continue through the usual channels. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has moved on from duties to a discussion about accountability, reporting and informing. I respect his concerns. That is an important debate on its own. I shall certainly reflect on his suggestion about the reporting mechanism and whether some system of annual reporting on preparedness should be established. We shall reflect on that issue between now and Report.

Lord Lucas: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 2.36 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Agriculture: Biosecurity

Baroness Byford: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the present biosecurity arrangements for the control of disease in agriculture and horticulture are adequate.
	My Lords, I recently read the report of the British Veterinary Association's congress on 30 September. In his opening speech, the president, Tim Greet, said:
	"Allegedly, we have spent the last three years absorbing the lessons learned during the catastrophic foot and mouth disease. However, I am very concerned that, come the next serious assault, we'll be little better prepared or equipped to defend against it; in fact, we may be significantly worse off".
	Many of us have been critical of the Government over the past three years. The foot and mouth outbreak cost a lot of money and caused a great deal of misery to humans and animals. We have continually questioned the Government's readiness to cope with future outbreaks. We believe that their approach is complacent and, as Tim Greet put it,
	"could potentially be downright dangerous".
	I must declare an interest as an associate member of the BVA.
	The Veterinary Laboratories Agency, using seizure data from April 2001 to the end of September 2003, estimates that annual illegal meat imports are running at between 4,400 and 28,600 tonnes. That estimate is 60 per cent higher than the previous one and reflects the level of seizures from January to September 2003. Have there been any rapid increases since then?
	The prevention of such imports and the firm control of aircraft and shipping waste are vital to any bio-security programme. The Government's failure to recognise that and to discharge their responsibilities is reprehensible.
	Figures that were quoted in another place on 29 April showed that the UK will be guarded by six sniffer dogs, operating in shifts from Heathrow. Can the Minister give us any news of plans to train more dogs to provide better cover? What happens at the other 106 ports of entry? Have the Government commissioned any trials on electronic surveillance systems such as those that the Minister saw at the Royal Show?
	I turn to the direct prevention and control of disease. During the passage of the Animal Health Bill through this House, we strongly urged that vaccination should be a major plank of any policy. Will the Minister tell us what the present position is? Do the Government have plans to support vaccination against some of the new diseases, which will be threatening? I understand that Defra Minister Ben Bradshaw indicated at the Labour Party conference that a reliable test for badgers is very close. Can the Minister make a firm statement on that?
	We are facing an ever increasing threat from bovine TB. The Godfray report of March 2004 recommended that badgers be treated as a wildlife reservoir of the disease. Could any other animal that regularly accesses pasture and farm buildings be such a reservoir and have any animals been proven not to carry the disease?
	Peter Jinman, past president of the BVA, recently commented:
	"We cannot go on killing cattle as an accepted means of disease control and not cull other species that present a danger because certain opinions suggest that they cannot be culled".
	What action are the Government taking in the West Country, where one in 10 cattle herds in Devon and Cornwall was subjected to TB restrictions during the first six months of this year? What hope can the Minister give to people such as Tony Yewdall who has lost 89 cows in his herd of 235?
	Last year, the Defra Select Committee also predicted that there was going to be a shortage of large-animal vets. It calculated that less than 10 per cent of vets do large-animal work, and that those who do spend a mere 15 per cent of their time on the farms in a position to see what is happening. The marked real-terms decline in agricultural incomes has resulted in farmers "saving" on their use of vets. The intervention of the Competition Commission to allow dispensers to make up prescription medicines will result in further income decreases for the veterinary profession.
	Human medicines are now being dispensed by supermarkets which apparently make no secret of their plans to use the service as a loss leader to attract custom. Already, small pharmacies are closing. I fear that similar practices in veterinary dispensing will have a similar effect on both large and small animal practices. Will the Minister commit the Government to re-examining the commission's findings?
	The UK Government can seize illegal meat and support vaccine development, but bans on the importation of legal goods have to be imposed by the EU or with its approval. In 2004, chicken imports were stopped from 12 countries including Thailand, Canada and the United States of America. That has been done in response to outbreaks of avian flu, but it is not enough.
	I have more than once drawn the House's attention to the EU's appalling record on inspecting third-country animal husbandry once the supply contracts have been signed. Is it really satisfactory to leave to the EU the monitoring of imports to this country? Does the Minister agree that this position cannot continue?
	The correct disposal of fallen stock must be central to any biosecurity policy. Farming representatives have put the annual disposal requirement at 1.3 million fully grown animals, 2.6 million youngsters and 36 million birds. Traditionally, hunt kennels, knackers' yards and renderers have collected the bulk of that, but small quantities have been dealt with in a variety of different ways including incinerators.
	The Government "oversight" during the EU negotiations on incineration has resulted in industrial standards being applied to farm incinerators. The pig industry and many of the rest of us had understood that the existing installations would retain their approvals until the end of this year. It appears now that unless an application for a replacement or updated system was received by Defra by 1 June, the old approvals would no longer apply. That is, they will no longer apply unless Defra has failed to process the application for the new one.
	Will the Minister ensure that all the old approvals will be extended to the end of the year? Will he also tell us the reasons for the further delay to the fallen stock scheme, the cause of the postponement and the new start date?
	I turn now to another important aspect of farming: horticulture. The horticulture sector encompasses a wide range of crops and associated pest and disease threats. A large number of these crop species are subject to specific European Union legislation and quarantine inspection aimed at controlling the spread of notifiable pests and diseases into and within EU regions. In England and Wales, Defra relies on the co-operation of the individual affected horticultural businesses to arrest the spread of pests and disease to other parts of the industry and the environment, enabling the national government to meet their EU plant health obligations.
	While Defra relies on the co-operation of these individual businesses, current plant health policy does not work in the interests of those affected by escapes of introduced notifiable pests and diseases. In this regard I am thinking particularly of potatoes and ring rot. Businesses directly affected by Defra's eradication activity are in fact penalised through the burdens of loss of stock, disruption, the costs associated with disposal and the lack of compensation. It is an unsatisfactory situation. There is talk of a compensation scheme, but in return growers would need a compensation scheme put in place to protect individuals who are currently expected to sacrifice their business for government and for the rest of their sector. I understand that Ministers have indicated that support could be made available for risk-sharing proposals to help the horticultural industries to protect themselves and develop their own compensation mechanisms. I should be very grateful if the Minister will refer to that in his winding up.
	I thank those who will speak in this short debate. The need for a healthy plant and livestock industry is essential for the long-term sustainability and future profitability of the countryside.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has been delayed. I shall therefore go ahead of him. I am sure that I cannot use his time.
	We should be very grateful to my noble friend Lady Byford for tabling this Question for debate. There is much concern in many agricultural circles in this country about how we are doing in ensuring the security of our livestock and horticulture. Are we adequately prepared to handle another major disease outbreak such as the foot and mouth outbreak? Will we react in the same way? Is our vigilance against disease as adequate as it should be? I repeat, as I often do, that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
	I should like to deal first with the issue of security against the introduction of disease from outside the country. I stress that disease—animal, human or plant—is a global issue. We can no longer ignore it because it occurs in a distant part of the world. It is part of our global village and in our own backyard and we should treat it as such. A very good example of that is the current problems with avian flu.
	Despite the frequent questions and comments made in this House and elsewhere, travellers arriving in this country are still not asked to declare whether they are in possession of meat or meat products, as is the case, for example, in the United States. Nor is any information provided to the traveller of the dangers of bringing in meat and meat products. I believe that both measures would be very effective and not terribly costly.
	Mention has been made of sniffer dogs. My understanding is that we have six trained sniffer dogs, but even if that number is incorrect, I would still say that we need dozens and possibly hundreds of them. They are effectively used in Australia and New Zealand to detect any importation of meat or meat products in the luggage of the millions of people who travel the world.
	Every year, several million people come into the ports and airports of this country. It is very likely that some of the major problems we have faced, such as foot and mouth and swine fever, were due to the inadvertent introduction of infected meat and meat products into this country, after which it got into the animal food chain.
	One question that we need to ask is how prepared we are for the quick detection, identification and reporting of suspected disease. The recent pandemics of foot and mouth, swine fever and so on have spawned new procedures that make detection very rapid, when delays in the past of even just a few days have been extraordinarily crucial to the spread of the disease.
	New techniques and methodologies are available, however. The United States Department of Agriculture has now developed a state of the art technique called PCR—polymerase chain reaction. That is a test which identifies the genetic markers of an infectious agent such as a virus—that is, its signature. It can identify the signature within an hour, and a diagnosis of the infection can then be made, put on the Internet and sent off to a central area for assessment and diagnosis.
	The home security department of the United States Department of Agriculture is, I understand, spending something like 380 million dollars in the coming year to set up labs within its own territory. In addition, it is establishing sentinel laboratories elsewhere in the world, where major plagues of animals and plants are rampant, so that their rapid detection using satellite navigation and global positioning systems is possible. In that way, it will be possible to keep close tabs on the infection.
	Obviously, massive amounts of funding are available in the United States for the control of exotic diseases. Should an outbreak occur there, it will not only compromise the livestock industry but represent a major social and political problem. I do not suggest that the United Kingdom should undertake a comparable exercise, but it could collaborate and co-operate with the United States and the departments and laboratories in our own Commonwealth in providing global security against animal and plant diseases. In that way, we could respond rapidly to their identification and control. Has the Minister any information as to what is happening in Defra to collaborate with the United States authorities in that respect?
	The issue of disease security covers many areas, and it is impossible to identify them all in such a short debate. The surveillance of domestic livestock via vets on farms has been mentioned. But there is also the shortage of wild animal vets; the role of wildlife and its impact on our livestock—for example, West Nile Virus; and the new salmonella strains, such as Salmonella Newport. They are all examples of areas in which vigilance is absolutely necessary.
	I do not by any means want to suggest that our animal and plant health diagnostic and controlled services are faulty; on the contrary, they are as effective as they are allowed to be, given the funding and manpower available to them. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that adequate attention and funding will be available to ensure adequate biosecurity for disease control in our agriculture and horticulture.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in the continued absence of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I rise to speak.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for asking this question this afternoon. We have worked on these matters for a long time together, and I am pleased to be here today.
	I declare my interest as a cheese maker and the wife of a farmer. We have a small herd of dairy goats, a flock of about 20 Black Welsh Mountain sheep and a few pigs and hens and ducks. In other words, we are traditional farmers. We dispose of most of our milk, cheese, lamb, pork and eggs through our farm shop and at farmers' markets. As we have the public on our premises and sell food products away from the farm, we are acutely and constantly aware of the need for the highest standards of hygiene.
	Biosecurity is a new word coined, I think, during the recent foot and mouth outbreak. What it really means on the farm is the application of the principles of rigorous hygiene and of good sense. I could have said common sense, but my husband advises me that sense is becoming less and less common. Biosecurity also implies a requirement for knowledge. If it is not understood that micro-organisms, in the form of bacteria, viruses and parasites, can cause disease, and if a basic knowledge of where these are likely to lurk and how diseases are transmitted and are recognised is lacking, it is unlikely that biosecurity measures will be put in place. I believe that most farmers are aware of the need for biosecurity and that they have, to a greater or lesser degree, taken appropriate action.
	Defra suggests that farmers consult their veterinary surgeons and draw up an animal health plan. That will, of course, include biosecurity measures. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, has made clear the problems current in rural veterinary practices. There is an acute shortage of large animal vets. In addition, as we have been reminded in the news today, farm incomes are such that farmers may be very reluctant to incur what they consider to be non-essential costs. As it is, we have reached the stage where, unless a sick animal is of considerable value, a farmer may well consider that it would make economic sense to have it destroyed. Thus some infectious diseases may be missed; animals may be killed before their disease has been diagnosed, and the disease may spread. Vets do not visit farms for nothing, and they cannot be expected to.
	Is there a place for what used to be known as Ministry vets to give on-farm advice? Biosecurity, as we found during the foot and mouth outbreak, is of paramount importance not just to the individual farmer, but to his or her community and to the nation. We already see dairy hygiene inspectors, environmental health officers and trading standards officers on a regular basis and a health and safety inspector once in a blue moon. We have a very good relationship with them and have always found them to be very helpful.
	My purpose for asking this question has two sides. Clearly, the first is to offer face-to-face advice to the farmer. Secondly, it is essential that government vets should not just "drive a desk" as the saying goes. They need to have a good knowledge of the farmers and the farms in their region. That can be gained only from regular contacts with them under normal working conditions. It is no good throwing large numbers of people out into the field at the time of an epidemic when the team leaders have no clue about the farmers with whom they are dealing or about the lie of the land. That was painfully clear at the beginning of the foot and mouth outbreak.
	There are many measures that farmers can take to protect the health both of their own livestock and of their human visitors and customers. The Defra leaflet, Better Biosecurity Provides Peace of Mind, Healthy Stock, and a More Viable Business, gives a good start to anyone who does not have measures in place. There will be occasions when some of the Defra suggestions are impractical or, indeed, impossible. There is no way in which farmers can isolate themselves from all outside contacts. People cannot be stopped from walking their dogs, which may or may not have been wormed and vaccinated, on public footpaths that go across grazing land or through farmyards. Wild birds cannot be prevented from joining free-range poultry in their pens or flying over or landing in fields. A determined wild animal cannot be stopped from forcing its way through, over or under a fence or hedge onto grazing land or gaining access to drinking water provided for farm animals.
	Farmers are allowed to control rats, grey squirrels and rabbits. No farm will ever be totally clear of those creatures, which are all known to carry infectious or contagious diseases. Larger wild animals, such as deer, foxes and badgers cause more of a problem. I have a Starred Question about TB controls next week, so I will refrain from elaborating on that topic for the moment. Just as overstocking causes health breakdown in farmed animals, so can overpopulation cause malnutrition and disease in wildlife. We should always remember that.
	Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government make any distinction between large and small units; corporate farms and family run farms; intensive, extensive and organic systems; full and part-time farmers and, finally, dealers? At present, I have the impression that, so far as Defra is concerned, one size fits all. That is another reason why it is so important that government vets know their farmers. What advice there is needs to be tailored to the recipient, otherwise, experience tells me, it is likely to be ignored. In my past life, I was a sales rep, and I was always told, "Face-to-face first, leaflets afterwards". That is very important.
	There is an old farming saying, "You buy in stock, you buy in trouble". The Defra leaflet gives very good advice. So often it is the movement of sheep, cattle or pigs between farms and markets without proper precautionary procedures that has led to severe outbreaks of disease in this country. So often it is a small number of rogue dealers who ignore the rules. I am sure that officials know who they are. Is it possible for Defra officials to do with them what environmental health inspectors do with dodgy food establishments—keep a regular and very close eye on them until they toe the line?
	The farming community is getting a little tired of being blamed for everything that goes wrong in the countryside. It is to blame in some circumstances and may have some responsibility in others, but it is not to blame for everything that goes wrong. There is also a place for those who use the countryside to behave responsibly and to respect farmers' need for biosecurity, particularly if they have animals with them. On our farm, we welcome footpath walkers and visitors—but, just as any host is entitled to, we expect them to observe the house rules. The organisations that represent the farming community do a great deal to publicise the need for visitors to respect the countryside. I have come to the conclusion that, just as most but not all farmers seem to get the Government's biosecurity message, so most but not all visitors to the countryside seem to get our message, and it is likely that some never will.

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I apologise profusely for not being in my place at the start of the debate. I had allowed enough time, but two trains in front of mine had broken down on the line, hence I have been delayed by more than three hours. I apologise unreservedly to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for not being present to hear her opening remarks, and I withdraw from the debate.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I accept the apologies given by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Earlier in the week in south Wales, the railway system was greatly delayed by cattle on the line. Such things are not unknown; that clearly shows the importance of fencing.
	I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for introducing the debate and bringing it to the attention of the House. It is quite right that she did; there is a great deal of concern, to which she referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar. The facts concern the veterinary sector very much. I declare that I am also an associate of the British Veterinary Association.
	We are talking about the risks of the spread of infection, and their reduction through biosecurity. That raises a huge number of issues, and I shall focus on only a few. I shall list them, however, because it shows the problem that Defra, the farmers and the veterinary profession have. They have to contend with illegal meat imports, the threat of bioterrorism, the situation in our markets and at agricultural shows, the fallen stock issue, foot and mouth disease, bovine TB, the lack of large-animal vets, the inadequate system of tracking livestock, and all sorts of such issues, including scrapie and TSEs. All that I can do is pick out a few of those issues and express concerns felt throughout the industry and, indeed, beyond.
	The recent reports of the Government's Veterinary Laboratory Agency show in some detail the situation on illegal meat imports. It has conducted quite a searching risk assessment of the impact of the danger from them. As someone who has been involved in economics and scientific research, the problem is that we always have difficulties with statistics. In this case, the statistics used are those that tracked imports of meat between 2001 and 2003, which record only 11,875 tonnes with 90 per cent certainty, according to the department's risk assessment.
	I seem to recollect, however—I have not had time to research it properly—that, within the past 12 months, the Minister said in reply to a question that more up-to-date information appeared to indicate that about 50,000 tonnes of illegal meat had come into the country after 2003. I would like the Minister to substantiate the figure for the amount of meat that has come in since the risk assessment took place. The assumptions of the risk assessment, particularly in the likelihood of outbreaks occurring as a result of meat imports, seem to be something of the order of one infection between 19 years and 600 years. With up-to-date data on more large amounts of illegal meat coming in, those risk assessments should be reviewed. I am not tearing at the Minister's throat, but it is a matter for his department about which we are all concerned.
	Given the state of security, particularly in the Middle East, the unknown movement of materials and people—especially scientists—could indicate a continuing risk of bioterrorism. The president of the British Veterinary Association stated that, in the former USSR, 60,000 scientists were engaged in research on bio-warfare. Indeed, 100 establishments in the former USSR were engaged in such research. Who is to say that some of those scientists have not found their way into countries where a fairly chaotic situation exists? I would like to hear some reference to what precautions against bioterrorism are taking place in the UK, from Defra's viewpoint; I am sure that the Minister cannot speak for every department of the Government. Some indication of the consideration that has been given to the issue is important.
	Biosecurity at markets, in terms of the timings at which farmers can bring stock to markets and the cleaning of vehicles, is a continuing issue. The department has reduced the number of days necessary before farmers can take their stock to market if they have been in contact with other stock. However, there are issues concerning agricultural shows. For example, if a farmer shows at an agricultural show, he cannot then market his stock for more than a week. I do not know whether that could be reduced to six days, but it would be mighty convenient if it could, as many sales take place on Fridays.
	The Government are conducting control of scrapie in a responsible way. There are problems, but the strategy is basically right. However, the system for large-animal vets and the number of vets in government service are a continuing cause of concern. There are clearly not enough large-animal vets in the country, as the president of the British Veterinary Association, Tim Greet, has stated. We cannot continue to rely on the import of vets from the rest of Europe and around the world to help us out—he used the phrase "bail us out"—when we have issues such as another FMD outbreak. The problems that arose there are well-documented.
	Perhaps the most interesting and telling question is: if one does not know where one's livestock is, how can one control biosecurity? I draw the Minister's attention to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report. I shall not refer to the comments of the chairman, because I know that the Minister will feel that that is contentious. But can he comment on the report and its constructive criticisms? For example:
	"The cattle tracing system is more expensive and less efficient than systems used in other Member States"
	of the European Union.
	The second recommendation was that the Government make markets responsible for reporting all relevant animal movements, which would reduce anomalies. That could save up to £1 million a year in posting costs alone. There are many other issues raised by the committee, but perhaps the fact that reducing error levels could save the department about £15 million a year would be a major step forward.
	The committee also said that there were,
	"Poor interfaces between the Cattle Tracing System and the Department's Common Agricultural Policy subsidy databases",
	which,
	"prevented full cross-checking of farmers' claims".
	There are many issues relating to this matter and much bureaucracy. But there are also many animals which are lost in the system.
	I realise that my time is up, but I have raised these questions because they come under the remit of this debate raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, it is sad that we have had to miss the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, through no fault of his own. I thank him for the courteous manner in which he explained the problems he encountered. I thank my noble friend Lady Byford for initiating this important debate, which enables me to talk about the risks that illegally imported meats pose to the biosecurity of the UK. Those include bush meats and meats that are banned by CITES.
	The main risk that they pose to agriculture in the UK is simple—foot and mouth disease. It is known that an infected bone was the cause of one of three FMD epidemics in the past 30 years. The other two outbreaks are believed also to have been caused by infected illegally imported meats. There is not sufficient time to cover in this speech other important diseases.
	Defra estimates that the total amount of illegal meat entering the UK increased from 7,500 tonnes to more than 11,750 tonnes in the past year alone. That is a 60 per cent increase. Interestingly, 85 per cent of the total weight of illegal meat enters the UK via personal baggage. These figures lead one to conclude that there has been a rapid rise in the importation of illegal meats through airports and thus the risk to our biosecurity.
	Defra estimates that between 65 kilograms and half a tonne of illegal meat is infected with FMD. Perhaps the Minister can say how Defra calculates that statistic in the light of his Written Answer of 23 February 2004 in which he said:
	"Illegal imports of meat are destroyed without undue delay".—[Official Report, 23/2/04; col. WA 36.]
	Furthermore, in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, in February 2003, the noble Baroness, Lady Farringdton, said:
	"I can assure you that the UK takes its responsibilities for implementing and enforcing CITES very seriously".
	Therefore, if illegal imports of meats are destroyed without undue delay, how can Defra, without analysing them, make such estimates about infected meat or statements about CITES enforcement?
	The increased quantities of seizures of illegal imported meats over the past two years are most alarming. The reason for that may well, in part, lie in a statement made by an African representative at the bush meat conference held on the 15 December 2003. He said that part of the reason for illegal meat imports was that smugglers were not frightened of any conviction if caught in the UK. If laws are not backed with deterrents such as prosecutions for breaking the law, it is not difficult to see why the lucrative trade in illegal meats is increasing alarmingly. Those Defra figures show that the government strategy on illegally imported meats is a shambles and is in disarray.
	Sadly, one can go further to suggest that this macabre trade is not driven by people wishing to bring in a piece of meat for their own consumption but is driven by an organised black market trade not dissimilar from the drug trade. Given that suitcases are seized full of bloody dripping meat, often valued at £36 per pound, with chimpanzees worth £350 apiece, this is a highly lucrative trade. I was unable to find estimates on the value of gorilla or elephant meat that was rumoured to be on offer for sale in Lambeth in January this year. All this is expensive meat not for your average gourmet. So one must ask why the Government is so lenient in not bringing forward or insisting that the relevant agencies bring forward prosecutions. In a Written Answer on 13 November 2003, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey stated:
	"HM Customs and Excise took on responsibility for anti-smuggling controls on meat from the 11 April 2003. Their policy is outlined in a service level agreement between Customs and Defra, which says that Customs will consider for investigation and prosecution cases where suitable evidence is available".
	He went on to say that,
	"there has not been sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution".—[Official Report, 13/11/03; col. WA 229.]
	Is around 9,600 tonnes of illegally imported meats found in passengers' baggage last year not suitable or sufficient evidence?
	In a Written Answer on 4 March 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
	"We have made clear that prosecutions are an important aspect of deterrence which we would like to see used where there is clear evidence of a serious breach in the rules".—[Official Report, 4/3/03; col. WA 106.]
	In February this year Paul Rainbird from the Customs illegal meat team, while accompanying the Customs Minister John Healey, during a leaflet launch on illegal meats at Heathrow airport, was reported to have commented openly that bringing illegal meats was mostly for personal consumption and was only like us taking a packet of digestive biscuits with us when we travel abroad. Is that the Government's view? That is disturbing when a suitcase full of illegal meat is unlikely to be for personal consumption and can breach the UK's biosecurity. The last time I ventured into the US the apple given out on the transatlantic flight was confiscated by Customs for the sake of biosecurity.
	The US government spend billions of dollars on biosecurity. Australia is spending £246 million this year alone to counter threats from exotic pests and diseases such as FMD. Sadly, this Government, with one FMD epidemic under their belt and other major agricultural epidemics, announced that they will spend only £8 million a year for the next three years to do the same. One may draw one's own conclusions from the Government's rhetoric versus action on how serious they take UK biosecurity.
	The last outbreak of FMD cost a minimum of £8 billion to this country and the death of more than 6 million animals, including the ruination of many agricultural businesses and family lives—not to mention the UK tourist business. We must not forget those farmers who committed suicide because of their dire situation brought on by FMD.
	The Government's actions on dealing with the importation of illegal meats might lead one to believe that the biosecurity of the UK is not one of their priorities. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, called Defra,
	"a dog's dinner of the highest order".
	Let us hope that that dog does not catch some epidemic disease in the near future.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for initiating this debate and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. Clearly, the aftermath of the foot and mouth outbreak is still with us. We all recall that it was one of the most traumatic experiences for the farming sector and most rural areas of this country and, indeed, for the Government. Much expense and distress were caused during the course of that outbreak.
	It is also true that the Government, the industry and the veterinary profession have put in a great deal of work to ensure that, should such an outbreak occur again, we shall have learnt the lessons and put them into practice. We have consulted on and published new details and contingency plans, and we have put in place new measures to protect against the import and spread of the disease. I think it is true to say that the industry is significantly more aware of the biosecurity implications of livestock movements and of operations on farms. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, that issue is necessarily universal but I think that, in general, the farming sector now has a substantially better understanding of it.
	We in the Government are committed to high standards for animal health and welfare—in particular, for the avoidance of disease or, if it does break out, the spread of disease. We have proposed an animal health and welfare strategy, which sets out the role of government and others in delivering those aims.
	Many of the remarks—in particular, the substantial comments at the end of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick—were directed at the issue of imports. I have often said in this House that, although imports are vitally important, internal movements and the normal husbandry of livestock should be seen as being of equal importance. Controls on imports from third countries must form a major part of our activity.
	Since the foot and mouth outbreak, we have transferred responsibility in that area to Defra in a co-ordinated way. The £8 million a year to which the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, referred is part of the £25 million extra money and not the total spent on controls. There has been a significant increase in the number of seizures since Customs and Excise took over enforcement responsibility, and 15,000 is the most recent figure for the number of seizures.
	I think that there was slight confusion surrounding the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. The mean estimate of the tonnage is between 4,000 and 28,000—that is, 12,000. But that does not mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, suggested, that there has been an increase since the previous Veterinary Laboratories Agency risk assessment estimate; it means that we have better information, and that better information suggests a mean figure of 12,000 tonnes of illegal meat. That is a serious problem for the country. However, very little of that meat will be diseased and very little of it will enter livestock or the food chain.
	One problem relating to the risk assessment—noble Lords who have read the VLA document will appreciate that it is a very complicated process—is that, while one can see that there is a point where it could be stopped, the real problem relates to what gets into the food chain and animal areas, how it gets in and through which routes.
	During the debate, a number of suggestions were made concerning improvements to both surveillance and control at the import level. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, asked about PCR testing. We are trialling PCR testing for both animal and plant disease, including death—I am not supposed to call it that but I cannot pronounce the term in Latin. We are also looking at some promising equipment which, as the noble Lord said, is being developed in the United States. He also referred to international co-operation in this area. We are not only monitoring progress through the OIE and elsewhere; we are also engaged in the exchange of research findings with America, Australia, New Zealand and the EU because it is an international problem.
	Clearly, issues arise in relation to illegal imports and the quality of legal imports. The previous provision, which allowed individuals to bring in from outside the EU a small amount of meat for personal consumption, has been closed at the UK's initiative.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, queried the scope and effectiveness of inspection facilities in areas of the EU from which legal meat is returned. There is a substantial programme in which not only the FVO and the Commission but also representatives from member states, including the UK, participate. The standard is maintained but I am not saying that there cannot be improvements. Clearly, when we are a trading nation, we need to have some conditions so that meat brought into this country is subject to the minimum health standards in the EU.
	A number of other specific points were raised, and I shall try to deal with them, albeit in a slightly disjointed way. The noble Baroness and others referred to TB. Clearly it is an endemic disease and one that causes a far bigger problem for us now than any exotic disease within Europe. We have caught up with the testing in relation to TB and have developed a new strategy for it. I know that we shall discuss further matters relating to TB when the noble Countess's Question is taken next week. However, in relation to the specific points about TB in badgers and other wildlife, the research is still ongoing. In relation to wildlife other than badgers, the CSL produced a report in July in which it identified muntjac deer, in particular, as another potential wildlife source of TB, and that is being followed through. As the noble Countess knows, the position in relation to badgers is still the subject of current tests and information from abroad.
	With regard to other ways of detecting the import of illegal meat, Customs and Excise is considering a variety of different X-ray systems and is hoping to improve its surveillance in that form. In relation to dogs—always a topic of interest in this House—the noble Lord is right that six teams of dogs are currently operating and those will shortly be augmented by another four. The number of dogs used does not necessarily improve the detection rate, but they are an important factor. Some countries which have fairly draconian systems of import controls do not use dogs, but they form one part of the import control system. However, I do not believe that we need hundreds of dogs, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, suggested.
	Returning briefly to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, in relation to PCR testing, the PCR test technology is used at Pirbright and we want to ensure that we can improve the use of PCR in certain circumstances. If I may, I shall elaborate on that in writing to the noble Lord.
	In terms of the diseases that face us, the current focus is clearly on avian influenza. The noble Baroness suggested that we were not taking sufficient notice of the restrictions on imports from countries with avian flu, but that is not the case. The EU has effectively imposed restrictions on imports from all countries that have outbreaks of avian flu and, indeed, a wide range of products have been banned from entering the EU. However, it is not necessary to ban everything because certain products, such as heat-treated poultry meat, which is not covered by the ban, could not carry the virus. But I am not sure whether that was what the noble Baroness meant in those circumstances.
	Reference was made, in particular by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, to the role of vets. Clearly the veterinary profession, and the relationship between that profession and farmers, forms an important part of the control of internal biosecurity. Of course, I am very familiar with the report of the committee in another place. The evidence collected suggests that there are enough large-animal vets in total and that, contrary to some rumours, it is still an attractive form of work for students. We have never trained more vets. Logically we should have enough large-animal vets, but in some parts of the country, because of the change in the number of practices, it has been difficult to recruit sufficient large-animal vets and farm-based vets. We recognise that there are recruitment problems. That is why we have agreed with the Royal College, the BVA and the NFU to set up a steering group to find solutions to the problems facing the profession, particularly in that area.
	The animal health and welfare strategy relies heavily on developing a system of farm health planning. That involves not only a greater commitment by farmers but also a greater involvement by vets in farm-level activity. It is clear that if we can deliver that dimension of the strategy, prevention is much better than cure and the full engagement of all parties will help to upgrade the effectiveness of biosecurity and veterinary practice on farms.
	I was asked about a one-size-fits-all approach to this matter. The point about farm health plans is that they would be tailored to individual farms and to the individual balance of activities on the farms. Therefore, in part, that point would be met.
	The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred to the cattle-tracing system. We recognise that there have been errors in the system and the interface between that and the RPA's main system is now being addressed. I believe that that situation will improve, but as yet there is some way to go.
	The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, raised a point about shows and markets. We have a six-day standstill. The length of the standstill was reduced from 20 days for sheep and cows immediately after the foot and mouth outbreak. The six days will remain; it is a six-day not a week-plus standstill.
	My time is almost up and as with most contributions to this debate, I have not addressed the issue of plant health. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made some remarks in that regard. It is an important area of the activity of Defra. We have had a number of outbreaks. Sudden oak death in rhododendron has required many resources and recently we have had small but significant outbreaks of potato rot as well, which have been contained.
	The noble Baroness raised the issue of compensation. We do not traditionally compensate for loss in relation to plants as we do in relation to the loss of livestock. Of course, the risk-sharing in that area must be part of the future agenda. I cannot hold out an expectation of the kind of compensation that is paid in relation to animals with foot and mouth.
	This has been an interesting debate. I hope that I have managed, in a somewhat random way, to pick out some of the points raised by noble Lords. If, when I read Hansard, I find other points that deserve a reply, I shall write to noble Lords in the normal way.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 2.36 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 2.34 to 2.36 p.m.]

Civil Contingencies Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 3 [Section 2: supplemental]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 5, line 2, at end insert—
	"(6) The Secretary of State shall ensure that such arrangements are in force as are necessary to secure that a Category 2 responder receives a fair contribution towards the costs incurred by it in complying with any requirements imposed on it by regulations made under section 2(3) or (4)."

Baroness Buscombe: Clause 3 deals with a Minister of the Crown issuing guidance to a person or body listed in Parts 1 or 3 of Schedule 1 about the matters specified in Clause 2(3)—a Minister making regulations as to the extent of duty to assess, to plan and to advise on contingency planning—and Clause 2(4)—which would apply the same provisions.
	Our amendment would insert a new subsection at the end of the clause which would ensure that the bodies to which these regulations apply are covered by a contribution from the Government towards costs incurred in carrying out requirements of the regulations. Our amendment relates to category 2 responders which are listed in Parts 3 and 4 of Schedule 1; namely, electricity suppliers, suppliers of gas and water, telecommunications providers and those connected with the transport industry.
	We understand that in an emergency many of those companies will need to pull together rapidly. Perhaps supplies will need to be moved from one part of the country to another and the transport industry may have to support a mass evacuation of one part of the country. The utilities may be required to carry out tasks that they would not normally do. I remember during the foot and mouth crisis that many farmers were told to clean up a lot of the land and equipment around their farms to try to prevent the spread of the disease. In order to carry out those functions they may have to hire other equipment. This is just one example of a group being asked to do something that it would not normally have to do during a time of crisis.
	I am sure that in any such event, all the category 2 responders will be more than happy to comply with any requirements imposed on them by the regulations. However the cost implications for them could be, and often are, very extensive. Is it fair to ask them to carry the burden of those costs? I look to the Minister for assurance on this issue and I look forward to hearing what he has to say on this matter. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: The name of my noble friend Lord McNally is on the amendment. We on these Benches certainly support the principle. The point about local authorities was made particularly forcefully by a number of speakers at Second Reading. I know that the Minister with his local authority background will well understand the tensions over funding of local authorities. I acknowledge the increase in funding for these functions included in the Spending Review 2004. I think that the Minister has written to noble Lords referring to that.
	Nevertheless, the point is well made by the noble Baroness. Moreover, even if the funding is provided right now—I do not know whether or not it is—this is, to use another unfortunate phrase, something of a moving target to ensure that all the preparation is in hand. These matters do not stand still. I am not sure whether technically one refers to the Secretary of State. I mention that not to carp, but simply to say to the Government Front Bench, "Please do not take a technical point on this. We can come back and get it technically right later". I support the noble Baroness.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We cannot accept this amendment. It splits local responders into categories with a different level of duty being imposed on each category.
	Two obligations fall on category 2 responders, the first of which is to share information. This will allow them to support the development of effective multi-agency plans. Secondly, they will also be obliged to co-operate with other category 1 and 2 responders through participation in local resilience forums. That does not mean that their emergency planning work will be taken over or that unnecessary or burdensome demands will be made of them. But it does mean that they will be fully engaged in local civil protection work in a structured, consistent and, I would like to think, helpful way.
	I think we could all accept that information sharing and co-operation are essential fundamentals to the development of sound risk assessments and well worked out planning and response arrangements. How could a fire authority make its flood response plans without a knowledge of key sites to be protected—for example, electricity substations? What is the sense in organisations preparing plans for dealing with emergencies if they do not hang together?
	The proposed amendments require the Government to ensure that category 2 responders receive a fair contribution towards the costs incurred in fulfilling these two duties. I certainly share the concerns that category 2 bodies are not unreasonably burdened, but I do not agree that it is necessary to put such a duty on the face of the Bill. I shall explain why.
	Category 2 responders are generally organisations that already have direct responsibilities to the public, either for their safety or for the provision of a range of essential services. In most cases, they are already subject to a range of specific civil protection duties by virtue of their licensing or regulatory regimes. For example, water undertakers are required to provide water by alternative means in the event of an unavoidable failure of the piped supply and to take account of the needs of vulnerable people. The regulatory regime for the railways also requires operators to do a degree of emergency planning work. The Bill does not duplicate these requirements, but merely seeks to ensure that emergency planning undertaken in specific sectors is linked to the wider civil protection effort.
	Indeed, that is what we discovered when we conducted the regulatory impact assessment on the Bill to measure the burdens imposed on the private sector. The main conclusions of the RIA were that cost per organisation in each police force area is quite small and that the costs are significantly outweighed by the benefits.
	In practice, the requirements imposed on category 2 responders would amount to attending a small number of local resilience forum meetings per year, providing information relevant to civil protection issues—for example, data on hazards or business continuity plans—and participating in one or perhaps two exercises per annum. The consultation on the draft Bill confirmed this assessment and provided some useful insights, which have been used subsequently to refine the thinking behind it.
	I recognise the need to strike a proper balance between engaging category 2 responders effectively in civil protection work and avoiding imposing unnecessary or disproportionate burdens on private sector bodies.
	Having said that, I hope that the noble Baronesses feel reassured. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her recognition of the additional funds that the Government have made available to local authorities for their work. That has been widely welcomed and has given a great deal of comfort to the local authority sector. Inevitably it will help in ensuring that arrangements work better, particularly in co-operation and joint works with other category 1 and 2 responders.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister sits down, he has dealt fairly adequately with the issue of what I would call "the maintenance of the early warning"—the emergency planning function. But there is the separate issue of costs incurred in the event of an actual emergency. One could envisage circumstances where perhaps transport firms for particular reasons were involved in exceptional cost, which would not otherwise be reimbursed. Will the Minister inform the Committee a little bit more about that specific aspect, which could be acute, specific and directed at particular firms rather than the general issue of the planning cost? I think that most people would accept that was a highly desirable thing and a liability with which they would have no problem.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is a fair point. I have not addressed the detail of the costs that private sector companies might incur. In a sense that is outside the scope of the Bill. It would be fair to say that that is something which will unfold as an event unfolds. That is the realistic approach. I have an example of the operation of a utility company, disrupted by an act of terror. Of course there might be a case for relaxing service level agreements or the level of service to be provided or perhaps even suspending price caps.
	In fairness, it has to be said that the issue will have to be thought through on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the situation, the impact on that particular service company and so on. So it is hard to be precise in these situations, but as a general rubric we do have to look at the way in which events work and the cost to that particular company of providing that particular service.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry, I need to pursue this matter a little further. I was thinking of something even more specific perhaps than that; I was thinking of the 1951 floods when there were major breaches to the sea wall. Inevitably some transport firms became very heavily committed in the movement of materials to repair those breaches. While I would accept that perhaps it is not appropriate to try and deal with this on the face of the Bill, I thought that the Minister may have had some more specific thoughts about how that sort of situation might be dealt with, rather than just saying that the circumstances would be left to unfold.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In that sort of situation obviously there would have to be compensation. I hope the noble Lord would expect that for compensation or payment for providing a particular service—you are moving people or goods from one place to another in response to something like a flood—clearly there will have to be agreement. That sort of arrangement is probably, as the noble Lord acknowledged, not best dealt with on the face of the Bill but in regulations and in guidance, so that the events can be covered in that way. I think that would be a far better way of doing it. That is why we resist this particular amendment.

Lord Jopling: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he would consider another aspect of this, which I think is extremely important. In the event of a terrorist action which involves a nuclear explosion, one of its often forgotten side effects is that there is a magnetic pulse effect which totally collapses the working of nearly all motor vehicles. If we were to have—one dreads to think it—a nuclear explosion, the street would be entirely cluttered with abandoned, immobile vehicles. If the emergency services were to work in those circumstances, they would somehow have to clear those vehicles from the streets to get through to do the work that they need to do. Inevitably, that would have to be done by pushing them physically off the road on to the pavement and in other ways. Would that situation also be covered by compensation? That is an important matter.
	I have asked Questions about magnetic pulsing before, but have never received a good Answer. I can imagine huge damage to motor vehicles in the area around a nuclear explosion in order for the emergency services to work. I am not at all clear what would be the position regarding compensation.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not going to make Dispatch Box pronouncements about precise details of a compensation scheme that might have to be put in place to deal with the inevitable side-effects of an explosion, nuclear or not. Such situations are in extremis. However, I am advised that for insurable loss or where a fault lies with the company or a third party, arrangements may have to be put in place. There may be emergencies in which the impact is spread across a community as a whole. Obviously, in such cases, the loss will be spread over the community and compensation may not always be appropriate. So it is difficult for me today to be precise about every set of circumstances in which a compensation scheme may or may not have to be put in place. It would be unwise for me to offer more than that at this stage.
	However, I understand the noble Lord's concern and can understand his frustration at not getting precise answers. We need to think carefully about the matter outside debate on the amendments.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response, but we are talking about what happens in extremis. That is the whole point of the Bill: it is about what we do in an emergency. I am concerned by the Minister's reply. I hear what he says—that Clauses 2 and 3 relate to duties to assess, plan and advise—but the amendment asks for a fair contribution in compensation for carrying out any duties in response to regulations that are laid down. Clause 2(3) states:
	"A Minister of the Crown may, in relation to a person or body listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1, make regulations about—
	(a) the extent of a duty under subsection (1) (subject to subsection (2));
	(b) the manner in which a duty under subsection (1) is to be performed".
	The Minister's reply has caused me to think more closely and clearly about the problem that we face. It is not at all clear to what extent those regulations might command a category 2 responder to act in a particular way. I hear the Minister's response that it is about assessing, planning and advising, but the regulations are actually about doing something. For the Minister to say that there cannot be any thoughts about compensation at this stage is a concern.
	Perhaps I should take the Bill away and think again about where we should pin the Minister down in the Bill on compensation for actions carried out by category 2 responders because, at the end of the day, that is what I am focusing on. However, I assumed that the regulations, following on from assessing, advising and planning, would talk about action. What is the point of having category 2 responders unless the regulations will talk about what they are to do? So in my view the Minister's reply is not satisfactory and poses more questions than it answers.
	As an aside, we must think about the role of some category 2 responders, how they operate and how they are already investing financially and in manpower to prepare, plan and respond to emergencies. For example, mobile network operators tend to plan nationally, rather than locally, and are crying out not only for clarity in the Bill about financial compensation, so that at least they know where they stand, but for the Government to appreciate that dealing with category 2 responders on a local authority basis is unhelpful. For example, somewhere such as Heathrow and its environs may span two local authorities. In many ways, the private sector is thinking ahead on such issues rather more strategically and effectively in extremis, in an emergency.
	Focusing back on compensation, I will take the amendment away, think carefully about the Minister's reply and consider how we may table an amendment on Report that demands a clear response from the Minister about compensation for action carried out by category 2 responders. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Advice and assistance to business]:
	[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Lucas: I briefly ask why this duty is being put on local authorities. When it comes to local businesses—say a hotel on the river in Boscastle—there is not much advice that you can give. Once the thing has been swept into the Bristol Channel, business continuance is a bit difficult. Local businesses tend just to have to put up with their discontinuance for a while because they are subject to any local emergency. Perhaps the Government can enlighten us and offer advice on ensuring that businesses keep the records and facilities in a way that enables them to be resilient, if they are operating on a larger than local scale and have an opportunity to continue in business if there is a local emergency.
	That seems an essentially national question that should surely be addressed by national government. Why should ICI on Teesside be approached by its local council about how it ensures the continuance of its petrochemical business in the event of a local emergency in Teesside? ICI will consider that nationally, if not internationally. What does a local authority bring to that discussion that could not be better done nationally?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Taking the noble Lord's point about Boscastle, that is an example in which it is most appropriate for services administered by the local authority to act and intervene. That is why local authorities have the lead responsibility to initiate recovery work and ensure that there is—in the jargon—business continuity management.
	The noble Lord made a point when he asked what would happen in the event of an incident involving a national resource, such as an oil refinery, which caused a local problem. No doubt, there will have to be some national response mixed in with the local response. However, because of their understanding of the locality and the work that the emergency planning chief officer and his staff will have done with local businesses and so on, it is felt that such people will be best placed. No doubt, they will also be able to understand whether there is a need for other parts of the national resilience framework to be brought in in that circumstance. That is why the lead responsibility has been placed with local authorities.
	Our experience—much of this is drawn from experience—is that local authorities have done an extremely good job in dealing with such problems and crises, even with terrorist attacks such as those at Bishopsgate or Manchester. Manchester is a good example of a case in which the local authority played a key role in response to a terrorist attack on the part of the commercial sector, pulling together organisations and working hand in hand with the business community to ensure the regeneration and recovery of part of the city centre. That is what works best, and it is on that experience that we have based the clause.

Clause 4 agreed to.
	Clause 5 [General measures]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 44:
	Page 5, line 40, at end insert ", or
	( ) establishing a public information programme in respect of emergencies"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 44, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 45, which is a similar amendment.
	Clause 5 will enable a Minister to require a body to perform a function in order to prevent an emergency, reduce the effects of an emergency or take any other action in connection with an emergency. Amendment No. 44 would add another paragraph to subsection (1) and would ensure that the Government established a public information programme in respect of emergencies.
	I know—I presume—that the Minister will tell us that there is no need for our amendment, as the Government have already produced and distributed a leaflet to every household in the country and have a website containing information on "Preparing for Emergencies". However, we would like to know whether that is all that the Government intend to do to educate the public on how to behave in an emergency.
	The need for information was highlighted in the BBC programme "Panorama" on Sunday 16 May 2004. The programme claimed that the UK was far behind many other Western countries when it came to giving the public advice on what to do and what to prepare for. Do the Government believe that, by publishing a small booklet with bullet points, they have caught up with the rest of the world in giving advice?
	The BBC programme went on to state that MI5 decided to publish security advice on its website for the first time in April this year and that the site had subsequently received 3 million hits in one day. That should show us that the public want to know what to do in an emergency. Do the Government now feel that they have done enough in educating the public in respect of emergencies? Could the Minister tell the House how the information available and distributed in this country compares with that in, say, Australia or America?
	Amendment No. 45 relates to a slightly different point. The public, if given the correct information, can be immensely helpful in preventing a terrorist attack. In Northern Ireland, during the IRA's campaign of the 1970s to the 1990s, there were frequent public information campaigns and terrorism awareness lessons were given in schools and in other public meeting places and to other public bodies. I remember well that we all had a much stronger sense of what we should do and how we should act in a precautionary way on public transport or in public buildings. For example, I find it extraordinary that people now walk past large black sacks left in unusual places. Certainly, I am still not prepared to accept a briefcase sitting by itself on a train or a platform or on a Tube—perhaps I make a fool of myself. Often, other members of the public—particularly the young, I notice—look at me as if I have gone slightly mad, but I was younger back in the 1970s, and I was acutely aware of such things. I was nearly blown up by the IRA in the 1970s by bombs that were defused with three minutes to spare, thanks to a porter—Irish, as it happened—who alerted the police to the fact that there was a massive bomb in plain black sacks three floors below the flat where I was sleeping. I had not realised that I was that important.
	The point is that there was a strong sense of what we should do and what precautions we should sensibly and quietly take. That has changed. Earlier today, we were saying that we were living in a new climate in a dangerous world. We just want to feel that the Government are doing all that they can to inform and educate people, not in such a way as to disturb them beyond what is reasonable but to make them feel comfortable that they and we are doing what we can to prevent and minimise harm. I look forward to the Minister's response, and I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: Like me, the noble Baroness would have been out of her hotel with her mac over her nightie as soon as the alarm went off. She would be as astounded as I was to find that it takes half an hour for some people to get out. In one case, someone was finishing putting on her make-up.
	What are the Government doing to learn from other countries? The public are not biddable; I am very aware of that. I understand that, last week, warning after warning was given to the Israeli people about going into Sinai. I was told by someone who lives in Israel that those warnings could not have been louder or clearer, but many went all the same. We know what happened. Is international experience being shared? Different cultures absorb information in different ways, but it is a small world now.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had some discussion and debate on preparedness and information provision. It is useful to do that, not least because we continue to learn. I have great respect for the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Buscombe. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, evacuated rapidly and is with us today to tell us about it. It is an appalling thought that she might not have been.
	Clause 2 puts a duty on category 1 responders to advise, warn and inform the public about emergencies. That duty should ensure that the need to provide the right information to the public is embedded in the civil protection process. When we look back at Protect and Survive and other efforts to inform the public, we cringe a bit and feel rather uncomfortable about what was said and done then. I can remember thinking that it was rather funny and rather fatuous. This time, however, we have got off on the right foot. No leaflet is perfect. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, kindly sent me an example of how access to information for minority groups might be improved. She gave me a useful example of some work of which she was aware. We are more than happy to see it as part of a learning process. I do not think that the amendments take us much further forward, but it would be helpful to think more on the matter.
	Amendment No. 45 would enable the Government to require category 1 respondents to establish and promote a public training programme. Training is different from information and advice. I suggest that there is no such thing as a standard terrorist threat or major incident and therefore no such thing as a standard response. Our response to any incident, including chemical or biological incidents, accidental or otherwise, would obviously depend on a number of factors; for example, what the danger is, who is affected by it, and how best to contain the incident. Trained personnel from the emergency services are obviously best placed to decide the appropriate response on the ground.
	To give detailed prescriptive advice or training in advance about how to handle every potential threat could be misleading and perhaps unhelpful because it would engender a sense of confusion. However, householders can take basic precautions which would help them in any number of disruptive incidents. For example, many households already keep handy a supply of candles and a torch in case of power cuts. The best first piece of advice in the event of an emergency is: go in, stay in and tune in. By doing that, members of the public are more likely to be in touch with information put out through public broadcasts. We do not intend to institute a programme of public training or to get local responders to do that. For that reason, we resist the amendment.
	We have looked at what other countries have done and reflected on their experience. We have used that experience in applying it to United Kingdom circumstances because that makes much more sense. There is no "one size fits all" approach. We need to ensure that responders are in the best possible position to provide information, that they understand their local information needs, and that they can pass on useful government-acquired information. In that sense, we are improving the range and quality of our resilience and trying to ratchet up local responders' sense of awareness.
	We do not want to be over-prescriptive. On the other hand, we want to ensure that through all our programmes we provide appropriate levels of information, make good use of broadcasts, understand that people will want to access information in that way, and make good use of the Internet, which is now an increasingly widely used form of media and communication.

Lord Garden: On behalf of those still waiting in breathless anticipation of the delivery of the pamphlet, perhaps I may ask whether a survey has been carried out to see how many people received it. It certainly has not yet made it to NW3.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I may have responded to this point in an earlier debate. Surveying is ongoing to gauge the percentage coverage. I do not have the figure in my head but I will try to supply the noble Lord and others involved in these discussions with follow-up information. We want to ensure that the leaflet has got round. I am not sure that I have received my copy either, so the noble Lord is not alone.

Baroness Hamwee: There would be little point in sending out further copies through the same delivery network. Perhaps the Government will consider alternative means of delivery through commercial companies other than Royal Mail.

Baroness Buscombe: At the risk of sounding a little flippant, I can inform the Minister that Bremner, Bird and Fortune certainly received their copy of the leaflet. I am not sure how one should take it, but they certainly made light of the leaflet. The point of a skit that they did last weekend was that the only advice is to stay at home. It was very funny but rather unfortunate because that is not the British way. I hope that people will have taken it lightly. The difficulty is the extent to which the public, in particular young people, take notice of any leaflets, whether national or local. No matter how much hard work local authorities may do through local education and information programmes, I am afraid that I remain sceptical that their information will hit home. There should be more information in schools and more broadcasting.
	I do not believe that there is a danger of being too prescriptive. Our approach should be plain, straightforward, simple and commonsense. I am therefore disappointed by the Minister's response. I believe that any form of modernisation—that dreaded word—of our legislation on emergency powers and civil protection should have embedded in the Bill the insistence on a continuing programme of what to do, in simple ways, in an emergency. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]
	Clause 5 agreed to.
	On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Lucas: Although this matter arises at several points in the Bill, it is most concentrated here. The Bill gives certain authorities several powers to swap or obtain information. They must obtain the information for the purposes of the Bill but there is no further restriction on its use. Such a further restriction is common in other legislation; why is it missing here?
	There seems to be no provision for the transfer of information to government. To return to the subject of an earlier amendment, if government are not bound into the Bill they do not have any right to obtain the information they need to do their own planning. Since they are supposed to be part of the planning network, in the airy-fairy way described by the Minister, surely they will be hampered if they cannot get the data they need.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that the noble Lord would accept the premise that sharing information is essential to ensure that we have a coherent structure for emergency planning and a coherent response. It is crucial that plans and assessments are based on robust information about hazards and the procedures and capabilities of partner responders.
	The noble Lord asks what limits there are on the use of sensitive information. The regulations provide that sensitive information, which may relate to national security, are to be used only for the purpose of performing a duty under the Bill where the information was obtained to support another emergency function. The only exception that I can see is where consent has been obtained to use the information for other purposes. It is clearly a sensitive issue. Ultimately, we must take a lot on trust because the situations that we are discussing are likely to involve sensitive issues that are difficult to resolve. But we have to operate on the basis of trust and ensure that the information we have is there and is doing the job of advancing the cause of public protection and acting in the public interest. That is why the legislation is framed and phrased in that way and why the clauses work in the way that they do in order to ensure that sharing of information is connected to the performance of the duties under those clauses.
	Clause 6 allows for provision to be made about the sharing of information in relation to other legislation or legal provisions that relate to emergencies. That is its intent.

Baroness Hamwee: One of the public interests is the proper protection and the right balance of civil liberties. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing the Committee's attention to that point. I should add that my noble friend Lord McNally also opposes Clause 6 standing part of the Bill.
	It would help us all if we could have a greater understanding—it may be that it cannot be given today—of how the restrictive use of information that the Minister has described will be monitored. What will happen to the information after the time when it is required? Will it be retained? Within the proper constraints of civil liberties, will limits be applied? Similar issues have arisen so often in recent legislation; for example, the use of samples taken for DNA purposes, the use of CCTV cameras, the police filming video records at demonstrations, and so on. It is not a novel point, but it is certainly one to which we on these Benches and clearly the noble Lord need to have answers. I shall put it as strongly as that.

The Earl of Onslow: The reason why I find the noble Lord's answer rather disturbing is not because of the tone or even the substance of what he said, but it is what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is saying. It goes to the root of an enormous amount of legislation that is coming through now; be it that which is coming through in respect of the Children Bill and the great, enormous computer. It is the amount of information that the state is feeling it is necessary to get to itself.
	The state now is so capable of having these things and individuals, in a way, are getting so small. The balance of individual liberty is in serious danger of being undermined. Of course, I do not accuse members of the present Government of being Gauleiters or anything like that. But if we give people all those powers someone, as night follows day, will abuse them. That is why we should be awfully careful, at all stages of legislation, to say, "Are you absolutely sure you need it? If you are not, I still do not think that you need it and we, as a Parliament, should check it". It is worrying and is going through all the body politic at the moment. I suspect that it would apply to my own side were they in government. It is a temptation for all governments.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for not thinking that we would abuse information and that we have acted in good faith in the way in which we have framed this legislation. We have been quite careful. We have had a lot of discussion with—to use the jargon—the stakeholders. Clearly, their reaction to this is very important.
	It is worth saying that we have data protection legislation in place. We have the human rights legislation in place. Those things offer protections against abuse, which are very important. In addition, there will be regulations on the disclosure of information which will regulate the way in which that information is sought and disclosed. In this situation, it is the intention of government to use sensitive information sensitively. We will obviously have to respect the providers of that information, whether they be another part of the public service or a private utility.
	It is only on the basis of useful information and information given gladly to respond to an emergency situation that this will work. We do have to generate some good faith on that. I hope that we can all play our part in dispelling any cynicism on the Government's part. I know that people think that the state is overweening, but we are talking about circumstances where these are dire emergencies, where the information is essential and where people need to share information, trust one another and work together to the common good. In recent emergencies of which I am aware, I think that people have fairly done that and that government and local government have worked well.

Lord Lucas: Yes. But that is not what is worrying us. Quite: there are powers in this Bill for extensive information gathering and sharing in connection with emergencies and the planning therefor. I do not think that that gives us any cause for concern. The question that we are asking is: what else can happen to that information? Why, when in other legislation, one finds protections to say that that is all the information can be used for and that it should not be held beyond the time when it is useful, are there none in this legislation? Can we have them? If the noble Lord says that they are already there in some way, due to some other piece of legislation, can he please spell that out in a letter to us? I do not require it now.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The draft regulations make plain that sensitive information obtained pursuant to the regulations may be used only for the purposes of performing a duty under the Bill or another duty that relates to emergencies. Without appropriate consent, it cannot be used by a local responder—to enter into the jargon—for other purposes. Sensitive information cannot be disclosed to the public unless appropriate consent has been obtained. That will be set out in regulations, which are there in draft now. So that is the answer to the particular point that I think the noble Lord is making.

Lord Lucas: Is the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, going to explode?

Baroness Hamwee: No, I am not going to explode. I am going to ask a technical question. If the constraints and so on were in primary legislation, I assume that someone complaining that they had been breached would have an action for a breach of statutory duty. I do not know whether that applies in the case of a breach of regulations. The noble Lord can explode now!

Lord Lucas: I do not care a fig what is in draft regulations. They can change tomorrow. We are looking for the plain, fundamental protections for information that we have in other legislation. We are asking the Government to follow their own precedents and to put exactly what is said in draft information in primary legislation, which is where these protections belong and as they have done elsewhere.
	If the noble Lord is relying on and saying that there is other legislation, which means that what is in the draft legislation is inevitable and is there as part of the law already, perhaps he will spell that out to me in a letter. If he is saying that we are relying, for the protection of the citizen, on the Government's goodwill in producing a piece of secondary legislation, I consider that utterly unacceptable.
	But to return to my second question, to which I have had no answer at all, how are central government getting hold of the information which they need to play a proper part in civil protection? They have no rights under any of the information gathering or collaboration clauses in this Bill. How are they to play their part unless they have those rights?

The Earl of Onslow: Does the noble Lord not understand that by putting these protections in regulations as opposed to, as normally is the case, in legislation, it adds to the suspicions of nasty, evil-minded people like myself who never trust any government at all?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I explained that there are protections already in place by virtue of the Data Protection Act. I have also explained that there are necessary protections being put in place by virtue of the regulations. I am not quite sure what more we can seek to get from where the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is coming from on this.
	I shall look in Hansard at what he has said and think some more about it. It may well be that I am missing the point, but I do not think so. I am not simply relying on the argument that people should take on trust what the Government are saying. We have framed this very carefully and protections have been put in place. Therefore I am not initially persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that putting something in the Bill would necessarily add to that. However, as ever I shall be happy to reflect on the points made by the noble Lord.
	I turn to the second point. The noble Lord asked how central government get their information. I direct the noble Lord towards Clause 9 which provides an enabling provision for central government to obtain information from local responders about their civil protection activities. I think that that answers the specific point he put to me.

Lord Lucas: No doubt we will visit the first point again on Report if we do not get any satisfaction out of the Government. If the Minister cannot understand the difference between protections being put in primary legislation and those included in secondary legislation, then I despair. However, I am sure that he will recover his sense on the matter in time to write to me a letter.
	I turn the provision for the Government to obtain information under Clause 9. If that is really the limit of the information that the Government think they need to run a proper civil contingency service, it really adds to my doubts about whether the Government are serious about playing a role in this at all.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 47A:
	After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
	"FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES
	(1) Any expenditure incurred by a local authority (as defined under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1) arising from this Bill including initial start up costs will be met in full by central Government through additional grant paid to each local authority.
	(2) To ascertain this figure the Audit Commission will, twelve months from the date on which this Act received Royal Assent, undertake a full evaluation of the annual running costs and start up costs arising from this Act incurred by each local authority."

Baroness Buscombe: I return to the difficult subject of financial arrangements, but this time I am focusing specifically on local authorities, the category 1 responders. With this amendment we turn to one of the key issues that has received considerable attention throughout the passage of the Bill and at Second Reading in your Lordships' House; namely, the cost of this measure on local authorities. Unlike the Civil Defence Act 1948 and associated regulations, neither the Bill nor the draft regulations make any explicit commitment to the funding of the function within local authorities.
	There is ample evidence that an increase over existing levels of funding will be necessary if local authorities are to deliver their category 1 duties effectively. Until the draft regulations and guidance are finalised, it is not possible to know exactly what implications there will be—which is a point I made in relation to category 2 responders as well. However, Part 1 sets out seven duties for all councils, all presenting significant new financial burdens. The Government have maintained that the Bill will be cost neutral to local authorities, although I must say that we have heard that before in relation to other Bills, but in the event it was not the case. We find it hard to believe that statement, and certainly so do local authorities.
	It is clear that in the light of the proposals in the legislation, the vast majority of emergency planning units have said that they will need to increase their staffing levels. This pattern is similar across all councils and areas. The cost of appointing a new emergency planning officer in the authority to undertake work as a result of the new legislation will be approximately £40,000. The average estimate of expenditure on emergency planning per top tier authority in 2002–03 was £178,857. Grossing this figure up to provide a picture at the national level would give an overall cost of just over £32 million for England and Wales, with over £21 million spent on salaries and staff-related costs alone. The current civil defence grant is £19 million. The average staff salary costs per emergency planning unit is £114,898.
	Councils have received no extra money for counter-terrorism work following 9/11, unlike the fire and police services. A major survey conducted by the Local Government Association in 2003 showed clearly that the emergency planning service was already severely underfunded even before the new duties are added, with councils contributing £17 million over and above their central government grant. This money has to be drawn from other service budgets and puts pressure on council tax levels.
	The Local Government Association has estimated that for local authorities to meet the additional requirements of this Bill in terms of initial start-up costs and to finance those tasks already being undertaken but not covered by central government, a figure of £90 million annually would be required. I am fully aware of the announcement made by the Chancellor in this year's spending review regarding additional resources for local authority emergency planning. While I welcome the increase, it is estimated that local authorities, on current and projected expenditure, will still be short by around £50 million annually of what is actually required.
	This amendment would therefore ensure that the full costs incurred by local authorities as a result of this Bill would be met in full by central government. This can only be right when so many of the new challenges and responsibilities that this Bill brings will fall on local government. To ascertain accurately the figure, the second part of my amendment would empower the Audit Commission to undertake a review of both the start-up and annual costs on each local authority, 12 months from the Bill being enacted. I beg to move.

Lord Garden: I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. No doubt the Minister will tell us how well the Government are doing in terms of providing financial support in so many different areas, in which case this will be a no-cost amendment because he will already have provided sufficient money. However, the truth of the matter is that whenever you talk to emergency planning staff around the country, they are seriously concerned.
	Like any other public spending authorities, local authorities have pressures on their budgets so that they tend to go for what is obvious and needed today rather than deal with a future risk. By taking this into the Bill, we would be showing what the Minister has agreed is necessary; that is, that we see this as a very urgent activity. In comparison with the funds being put into either defence or the intelligence services, which are also about the defence of this country, these sums are relatively small. We need to make sure that local authorities do not hold back on the process of getting on with providing defences against the possibility of these sorts of emergencies. Again, I strongly support the amendment.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: So far I have not intruded into the discussions on this Bill, although my correspondence has persuaded me that perhaps I ought to take an interest in it from now on. I rise to support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Having a local authority background I know how these impositions on local authorities pile up, one by one. It is essential that when duties of the sort contained in this Bill are put on local authorities, they are fully financed by central government. I say that because this is something which applies to the whole of the nation.
	One of the problems with civil defence was that it was badly funded. It was so badly funded that people did not take it seriously. They thought that civil defence planning was a joke because the Government refused to finance a proper civil defence system throughout the country. Only £19 million a year was spent on it. I believe that circumstances have changed and that both the public and local authorities need to take planning for emergencies seriously. However, they will not do so unless they are properly funded. That is why I believe it is essential for the Government to take this amendment on board.
	We all know and we all recognise that local authorities up and down the country are hard-pressed for cash. If they are not properly funded, and if they do the job properly, then the hard-pressed council tax payer will have to pay more rates. I would not have thought that that is what the Government would want at this point in time. So, from the point of view of their electoral well-being, the government party should take the amendment and local emergencies seriously and ensure that local government can carry out the tasks being assigned to it under the Bill.

Lord Jopling: I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. I also endorse and support what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. Far too often governments of all colours are happy to pass legislation, in either your Lordships' House or the other place, regardless of the implications of the costs to local authorities, in particular. The Government's refusal so far to accede to, or even to propose, what my noble friend has proposed is a reflection of the complacency to which I referred at some length earlier.
	I know that the Minister cannot promise, unless his brief allows him to do so, that the Government will do what my noble friend asks them to do, but I hope that he will take the matter away and seriously contemplate the fact that, by not specifying that the costs of these measures will be provided through additional grant, people will doubt that the Government take this issue seriously. If he is not able to do so, I hope that my noble friend will seriously consider bringing back an amendment on Report with which to test the opinion of the House. I should be very surprised if the overall view of noble Lords was not that this matter is so urgent that the extra costs ought to be fully met.

The Earl of Onslow: Eighty-five million years ago when I was a National Service subaltern I was told that time spent on reconnaissance was seldom wasted. That applies surely to planning. It is actually cheaper for a community to have proper planning carried out at local authority level. If something happens—God forbid—and the plans are not properly prepared, the results will be more expensive, and more discombobulation will occur. It will generally be a bad thing.
	If we are going to go down the route of asking local authorities to prepare the planning, for heaven's sake give them the tools to do the job properly—and that, I am afraid, means paying for it. A disaster in Somerset or Surrey affects people in Berkshire or Buckinghamshire; it becomes a national as well as a local issue and therefore it should be paid for nationally, and properly paid for.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 47A would require the Government to meet all local authority costs in implementing the Bill. Obviously I am aware that funding is an issue for local responders. In another incarnation I had some responsibility for putting together an estimate of the new burdens visited on local government in the emergency planning field during the late 1980s and the early 1990s, and I am well aware of planning officers' views on the subject from that time.
	We believe not only that local authorities should be funded appropriately for civil protection work, but that it is most important. It is for that reason that the Cabinet Office worked very closely with the Local Government Association in the run up to SR 2004 to ensure that it received the appropriate level of funding as part of that package. Noble Lords will have heard me say before—and I am quite happy to repeat it today—that, as a result, the Government doubled their contribution to the cost of local authority civil protection activities to £40 million per year, running from 2005 through to 2008.
	This was widely welcomed by local government and was seen as an excellent result which will significantly enhance its capacity to deal with the effects of a wide range of emergencies, whether caused by natural disasters, accidents or terrorism. The Emergency Planning Society said of the outcome that it was excellent news for the practitioner, which is a resounding thumbs-up for the Government's commitment in terms of money to this field of activity.
	The amendment would require the Government to make available funds to cover a local authority's start-up costs in implementing the requirements of the Bill. But the Bill is, by and large, organisational and in large part simply codifies existing best practice. So we do not anticipate that local authorities will face significant start-up costs of the kind implied by the amendment.
	We accept that it will take local authorities time and effort to digest and implement some of the requirements of the legislation in year one. However, these burdens were taken into account by the Government in the cost assessment that we developed as part of the SR 2004 cost assessment process. Start-up costs were smoothed across the provision made for the three years of the review period—that is, from 2005 through to 2008. That approach was supported and endorsed by the Local Government Association.
	The amendment also suggests that the Audit Commission should be required to measure local authority expenditure on the Act in its first year of implementation and that the Government should be required to reimburse this money. There are already public expenditure processes in place to establish appropriate funding levels across government. The spending review cycle exists to establish funding requirements for subsequent years. Spending levels in the early years of the new Act will form part of the evidence base for the SR 2006 exercise.
	I can make this commitment because it is a sensible one: if new burdens emerge during the spending review period they can be met from the £100 million counter-terrorism pool that the Government have created. We have made significant new investment in local authority resilience capacity and local authorities have warmly welcomed that. The challenge now is for central government and local authorities to work together to deliver improved civil protection arrangements across the country.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that the LGA wants £90 million. Simply put, I do not think that that is true. I have no evidence in front of me to suggest that it is. We have doubled our contribution—and that doubling was in agreement with the Local Government Association, which strongly supports the new level that has been established.
	I make one final point which goes to some of the politics behind the funding issue. The level of the civil defence grant since this Government have been in office—from 1997 through to the present time—has risen by something in the region of 180 per cent. To put that in context, in the years running from 1990 to 1997, the civil defence grant fell by 42 per cent. Objectively, I ask noble Lords to consider who has made the greater commitment towards the civil defence grant—my government or the government that was in place before we came into power? I believe that we have done an excellent job.

The Earl of Onslow: Am I to understand from that long and rather complicated answer that the Government have given them the money to do it? If so, why cannot that be placed straight on the face of the Bill? Through the verbiage and the comparison between this Government and the previous one and so on, I understood the Minister to be saying, "Yes, we have provided the money". Is that the case?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: A detailed exercise was carried out with the LGA in identifying new burdens. We have put £40 million in place by way of grants to local authorities. That process had the LGA's agreement and endorsement. I read out the endorsement from the Emergency Planning Society.
	The money that we have put in place has been broadly welcomed by local government. I can do and say no more than that. I think that we are making adequate provision; I have already said that if there are problems with that, of course they can be identified as new burdens in the usual cost round process, and that can be reflected in grant settlements in later years.

The Earl of Onslow: I am such a simple soul, and I am asking an incredibly simple question. Have the Government provided the amount of money which is required? I think that the Minister is saying yes. If the answer is "yes", why cannot he say "yes"? It is much quicker for everybody and gives the Hansard writer less to write down.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The answer is yes, we have provided the money which we think is necessary. That money has been provided in agreement with the Local Government Association.

Baroness Buscombe: Then it would be nice if we could have Amendment No. 47A on the face of the Bill.
	Clearly the Minister and I will have to agree to disagree. From what I have been hearing from the Local Government Association, it is clear to me that the money that has been put in place is simply not enough. Do the Minister's costings include the start-up costs?
	Noble Lords will recall that I made reference to the costs of staff salaries alone, not including all the add-on costs in terms of implementing the seven duties that are being placed on local authorities. They are emergency planning, risk assessment, internal business continuity planning, provision of warning and information to the public, provision of business continuity advice and information to commercial bodies, co-operation and information sharing. "Co-operation" is pretty open-ended.
	Perhaps both the Minister and I should return to the Local Government Association to make sure we know who is right. We are not satisfied that there are enough resources for this.
	The Government are imposing statutory obligations, particularly on local authorities and emergency services, while being unwilling to see any imposed on themselves. Even with this Bill, it is still not clear that the Government's response to a disaster would not be as confused and unco-ordinated as it was during the flooding and fuel crisis of 2000 and the foot and mouth crisis of 2001. Any government contribution to the response to an emergency must be well co-ordinated with clear leadership and well tested plans, and it must be properly funded. Indeed, the absence of any additional financial resources to meet the new duties and responsibilities contained in the Bill must be considered a great weakness and will put at risk the intent it tries to achieve. As the noble Lord, Lord Garden, pointed out, we must not, in any way, put the local authorities in a position whereby they hold back the process of providing adequate defence.
	The Minister has given me a robust response. I cannot accept it because my figures differ from his. Certainly, I do not feel comfortable that sufficient funding has been forthcoming or is forthcoming. One of the reasons is that much of the detail of the roles and the responsibilities under the legislation will be set out in guidance. Neither we nor the local authorities will see that guidance until it is published, after the Bill has received Royal Assent. So we do not know what additional responsibilities to be placed on local authorities may come to light. Local authorities are being given a key role. Therefore, we want to be sure that they are being properly funded to underpin the crucial role they are being asked to play.
	I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I also take encouragement from my noble friend Lord Jopling in terms of perhaps returning to this on Report. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 [Urgency]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 48:
	Page 7, line 12, leave out "thinks" and insert "genuinely believes on reasonable grounds"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 48, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. These amendments refer to Clauses 7 and 8 which detail what will happen in the most urgent of situations in England, Wales and Scotland.
	It is clear to all of us that there may well be situations in which there is real urgency and immediate action needs to be taken. Any such situation could be confused and the pressure on the Minister great. However, while we understand that swift action will need to be taken in such situations, we want to be sure that any decisions made are reasoned and thought out.
	Our amendment would replace the word "thinks" with the phrase,
	"genuinely believes on reasonable grounds"
	in terms of there being an urgent need to make emergency provisions. We feel that this is a much stronger phrase and would help to ensure that Ministers who exercise this crucial power have had the situation explained to them and the decision they are making is based on a balanced understanding of all the facts. We should remember that decisions taken in haste are often not the best ones.
	We believe that the word "thinks" is far too subjective and that some objectivity should be brought into this provision. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I support my noble friend on this amendment. I do not "think" that this amendment is appropriate, although some of my friends doubt whether I think at all. The real trouble is that some of the actions that might be taken because a Minister "thinks" they are appropriate might be inappropriate. If a court had to make a judgment on what a Minister "thinks", it might be rather difficult, whereas "reasonable grounds" is a fairly well understood phrase. If he had reasonable grounds for believing something, a court could make a judgment on it; if he did not have reasonable grounds, a court would have some difficulty. So although I am not a lawyer, I think that this amendment has a great deal of value.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: At a later stage, we will be debating questions arising out of Ministers' thought processes, and we are all interested in those.
	I think there is a problem which the noble Baroness attempted to face but from which, in the end, she backed away. By definition, we are dealing with a situation where urgency is written right through it—where the whole question is how to get something done quickly. If action is to be taken quickly and we write in some kind of condition about the validity of what is done, it has to be tested somewhere. Presumably, it will be tested in the courts, since there is no other obvious place for testing it. How do we test it in the courts if the whole point is that the situation is urgent and will not wait?
	I fully share the noble Baroness's general concern about delivering such powers into the hands of the executive. However, I think we are probably dealing with a situation in which we may have to trade in some of our traditional protection in order to ensure that we are protected from the emergency which has arisen.

The Earl of Onslow: We have heard two very interesting speeches, and I find myself agreeing with both of them. It is obviously true that very careful thought must be given to an urgent situation, without jumping to conclusions. As they say in carpentry, measure twice and cut once. In such situations you have to be very careful because you are faced with all sorts of horrid things coming at you all the time and you have to make very careful decisions. Therefore, "thinks" is possibly too sloppy a word, for want of a better.
	Equally, I completely understand the noble and learned Lord's point about urgency. But I think—I am using that word again—that my noble friend is right. It may not be that her amendment is exactly right, but I think that we should put down something which underlines that the thought process must be careful and urgent.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I too agree with the intent of the amendment, but I fear that it is rather defective. Let us weigh the word "thinks". One can think anything, but one really needs some evidence when one is making a decision of this kind, particularly if one is a relatively junior Minister such as a Lord Commissioner of the Treasury. One really should have some advice and evidence before one does something that one "thinks" one should do. The wording of the Bill is loose and it must be tightened up.
	However, unfortunately, I do not agree with the wording of the amendment, which proposes that we should insert "genuinely believes". Do not all Ministers always genuinely believe that what they are doing is correct? The amendment is a little tautological, although some recent experiences might make us doubt the genuineness of ministerial decisions. The amendment also states, "believes on reasonable grounds". What are those reasonable grounds? If I might suggest it, a better amendment would be insert, "believes on the available evidence". The amendment would then be fair and perhaps even I or someone else might table it on Report. It is, however, essential that, on a matter of urgency, we have something far more substantial than a Minister "thinks". God help us if legislation is going to proceed on the basis of what Ministers think.

Viscount Goschen: I certainly accept the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, that one has to be very careful about putting any hurdles in the way of an urgent decision that requires speed above all else. However, the phrase that was suggested by my noble friend—"believes on reasonable grounds"—is a fairly low hurdle, but it is a hurdle of sorts. The Bill as a whole, particularly in Part 2, invites this House to write a great number of blank cheques. At least some qualification such as the Minister must believe on reasonable grounds, as my noble friend suggests, or some similar wording—perhaps the Minister can come up with something better—would be appropriate.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. Does he appreciate that the fundamental problem is that anything less than a subjective test would have to be decided on somewhere? It would require someone to adjudicate upon it. The only place where that can be done is in the court. Will that not slow down the process?

Viscount Goschen: I would never cross swords with experienced lawyers in this House. Surely the Minister makes the decision. A court would have to make a decision only if there was a challenge. The Minister would make his decision on reasonable grounds. Unless the Minister is going to tell us that Ministers will make decisions on unreasonable grounds, surely it is reasonable to ask them to make their decisions on reasonable grounds as my noble friend suggests.
	I share the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about the word "genuinely". It is akin to saying "to be honest" or something of that nature. Of course the Minister's belief would be genuine. However, I support my noble friend's amendment or something very similar.

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: What is the difference between "thinks" and "genuinely believes on reasonable grounds"? I suspect that the Prime Minister genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction. I do not know whether there is a sufficient difference between the two forms of wording to justify the amendment or whether it would be better to look at something else that achieves a worthy objective.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may add a second thought, prompted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, although a second thought in the same afternoon might be a little dangerous. On other Bills, I have heard Ministers argue that to do something "on reasonable grounds" was a proper form of wording to put into a Bill, because it opened the possibility of challenge.
	We are assuming that emergency action is at issue. The action will be taken. The reason for allowing it to be challenged in court is not to prevent the action, but to open up the possibility of damages in the event that that action was deemed to be improper and someone subsequently suffered damages that they would not otherwise have suffered. A distinction can be drawn. I have certainly heard that form of wording advanced and advocated by Ministers previously when we have tried to replace it with something stronger or to remove it.

Lord Monson: It is generally the custom of this Government and, up to a point, all governments to resist fine-tuning amendments of this nature, but they would be wrong to do so in this case, because the adverse consequences in terms of time, trouble and money if the Minister were to jump the gun on wholly inadequate evidence would be considerable.
	However, having listened to the contributions from all quarters of the Chamber, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, had a very good point in the wording that he suggested. "Available evidence" is better and it would get round the problem that was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. I shall await the Minister's reply with great interest.

Baroness Buscombe: Before the Minister replies, I would like to add that the amendment has to be read also in the context of the fact that the Minister would be able to do something that he or she "thinks" is right and be able to give, as the Bill is drafted, an oral direction. Nothing would have even to be written down.
	We are talking about an extraordinarily wide power. I apologise to noble Lords for not having made the point clear and I shall make the point again in later amendments. We are talking about the ability to do something which a Minister "thinks" is necessary, on the spur of the moment perhaps, without having to have reasonable grounds. I would argue that the Prime Minister may have genuinely believed that there were weapons of mass destruction, but we have learnt that there were no reasonable grounds.
	So there is a difference between "thinks" and genuinely believing on reasonable grounds. Basing that belief on evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested, is entirely right, particularly given that we are talking about a fantastic power that the most junior Minister would have to be able do something by oral direction, because of insufficient time to produce regulations. I urge noble Lords to consider the bigger picture in relation to the whole of Clause 7.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: These are not amendments that we feel we can support. Before I get into the specifics, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the purposes of Clauses 7 and 8. I think that a number of noble Lords have rumbled precisely why they are in the legislation.
	The provisions are designed to enable action to be taken by Ministers or, in the case of Scotland, Scottish Ministers in a situation of urgency where there is insufficient time to make legislation. It is an exceptional power that is designed to ensure that, in those cases of real urgency, the Government can arrange for coherent and effective action to be taken at a local level. I can therefore understand why a number of noble Lords who have been party to the debate are keen to test the extent to which the Government feel that these powers are necessary; more importantly, to understand the circumstances in which they might be used; and to ensure that robust safeguards are in place.
	There will be circumstances when an emergency appears imminent when consistent, decisive and swift action must be taken. I think that most noble Lords will accept that very simple but important point. The response required to an emergency might fall outside existing emergency frameworks. Local responders, for example, might lack the information or advice to deal with it effectively, or it may not be apparent to local areas how best to deal with the situation, for whatever reason. In such situations urgent directions might be required; for example, in the case of a sudden heightening of a terrorist alert or immediately following a severe attack. Furthermore, urgent directions might be required when local responders are faced with a new scale or type of risk or threat. In such situations it is important to act swiftly.
	The amendments would require that the Minister's belief that an urgent direction is needed has to be reasonable. On the face of it, that seems entirely reasonable. However, the power to issue an urgent direction is a very unusual one and could be used coercively. I can therefore understand why the noble Baroness has tabled these amendments. Indeed, I can agree with the sentiment of the amendments—that we should expect all Ministers to exercise their powers in a reasonable and justifiable way. I do not think that anyone could argue against that point. We think, however, that the amendments are unnecessary.
	In issuing an urgent direction, any Minister would in any event be under the important public law duty to act reasonably. It has been argued that the requirement to act reasonably should be expressly provided for, to put the issue beyond doubt. However, to duplicate the public law requirement on the face of this Bill could cast doubt on its application to legislation where it is not explicitly expressed. I shall repeat that. If we put the provision on the face of the Bill, it could cast doubt on its application to legislation where it is not explicitly expressed.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I hope the Minister will explain that a little more. He seems to be arguing that something written in one Bill would give the same licence under another Bill in which it is not written. I have seen the word "reasonable" written into Bills before. If he is saying that it is reasonable for a Minister to act unreasonably if he is using powers under another Act which does not use the word "reasonable", I think he is using an unreasonable argument.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord makes a neat point. As I explained, the effect of other legislation might be undermined if we put the provision into the Bill in the terms that the noble Baroness has suggested. When the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform looked at this power and at how the Government have responded to those concerns, it did not express any concern itself about the absence of an express duty to exercise the power reasonably.
	There is already a clear requirement on Ministers to act reasonably when exercising the powers in the Bill. The fact that this obligation derives from public law rather than statute law does not, I am advised, in any way affect the strength of that requirement or the manner in which it can be enforced. Action taken by Ministers in breach of public law obligations will of course be challenged in the courts in the same way as action that breaches an express statutory requirement.
	It is for those reasons that we resist these amendments, though I can well understand the nervousness and caution that lies behind them.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: I do not want to embarrass my noble friend the Minister by shooting him a question of which I have not given him notice. However, I wonder whether the Wednesbury principle was in his mind when he spoke. If it was, I give notice now for when we debate this matter at a later stage that I believe it is a fairly vacuous protection in these circumstances. The Wednesbury rule extends only to someone who behaves as no reasonable person could behave. If the Minister is saying that in any event these matters can be tested in the courts, I would have thought that he had undercut his own argument. Surely the whole point is that one has to take action before they can be tested in the courts.

The Earl of Onslow: A slither of fear runs through many Members that the whole Bill gives far too much power to people in government. However well meaning and good those people are, be they Conservative, Liberal, Green or whoever they might be, it is the sort of power which, unchecked, can be abused. It is that which worries a lot of us, which is why we want the little bits of the provision to be tightened up. We want string and sealing wax, nuts and bolts, chains and hawsers, to ensure that these powers are not abused, however well meaningly.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not know whether the Minister has sat down or whether we are just having a little conversation. I am just as worried about what the Minister said—certainly with reference to the test of reasonableness—as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who makes a very good point. Many people are very worried about the powers contained in this Bill, particularly in Part 2.
	Another worry which concerns me is the question of which Ministers are deemed to be senior Ministers, who can take these decisions. One group of Ministers, the Lord Commissioners, are empowered to take these decisions. I can tell the Minister from my own experience about Lord Commissioners, who are near the lowest level of ministerial responsibility though not at the very lowest—assistant Whips are at the very lowest level. They occasionally have to sign guarantees. I believe that I signed guarantees for about £400 million when the Electricity Board wanted to borrow money from Germany. The other extent of their duties is signing the warrants which give firms the royal seal of approval. Apart from that, Lord Commissioners have no governmental experience at a senior administrative level.
	In a matter such as declaring a state of emergency, I wonder whether someone who lacks that sort of experience should be given that power. I must say that I would not have wanted to exercise such power, if it had been given to me. Without the administrative experience of high office in government, I would be very frightened of using that power. That is the sort of thing that concerns not only Members here today but many other people throughout the country.

Lord Jopling: I can add to what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said. As another Member of this House who was at one time a Lord Commissioner of the Treasury, I remember in the Heath administration that the Treasury used to send documents around for signing without filling in the amount of money. At that stage, a number of us were referred to as the "revolting Lord Commissioners", because we refused to sign them until the Treasury filled in the amount. The situation in those days was even worse—but certainly, in the rest of my time, there were never again any of those orders for signing by Lord Commissioners unless the entire amount was entered.

Lord Monson: Even if one accepts the Minister's argument that the word "reasonable" should not be used—and I can see that it was a fairly convincing argument, if one accepts the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that the word should not be used generally—what is wrong with the wording suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon? He suggested the words,
	"believes on the available evidence".
	That is surely something to which the Government could not possibly object.

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Perhaps the Minister could consider another alternative. It might read:
	"The Minister has reason to believe that".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I see that the debate is exercising Members of the Committee more than somewhat. It has certainly provided me with some food for thought. It is worth the Committee reflecting a little more on my points about including the amendment.
	If Parliament expressly provides in the Bill the powers conferred on the Minister—it is worth saying that it is a Minister of the Crown—why should that not be the same in subsequent Bills? If the provisions had to be expressed in those terms in all subsequent Bills, it might ultimately make it impossible to confer on a Minister—or, for that matter, a public authority—the responsibility without expressly requiring that it be exercised reasonably. Inevitably, that would cause confusion, particularly in relation to old powers drafted without reference to reasonableness—a consideration in itself—and to the occasional power that is unqualified.
	In the end, I am drawn to conclude that the best approach is the one that results in the simplest drafting with the fewest words that is least likely to cause confusion or cast doubt on the application of public law. If we were to depart from that principle, it would be more difficult to make our legislation work efficiently, particularly with legislation such as this that is designed to deal with very urgent situations, as I set out at the beginning of our debates.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, asked a very important question—whether we meant to apply the Wednesbury test. That is what is meant, but we think it a robust test. It has stood the challenge of time and can be adjudicated in the court, albeit after the direction has been issued. It is an important protection that has been relied on for a very long time. The wording that we have is the best in the circumstances. It provides the necessary flexibility and, importantly, relies on the public law duty of reasonableness that must apply to all Ministers in the circumstances in which they have to make a decision and give a direction.

Lord Lucas: If the Minister wants to keep things simple, he should leave out subsection (1) entirely. Then the clause would have the same effect, but we would have none of the confusion arising from subsection (1).

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response, and thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. As I pointed out earlier, I have real concerns in relation to the wording in the Bill, particularly given the fact that we are talking about oral directions and very junior Ministers. I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—that we are giving an extraordinary power to Ministers who might be very junior and have to act in extremis with very little experience. Perhaps we should all go away and think further about that in relation to amendments on Report.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I am drawn to the wording suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, which was, "believes on the available evidence". Notwithstanding the Minister's reply, I believe that there should be recognition that a Minister has to have some grounds for making the decision, no matter how urgently. It is all very well saying that action can be challenged in the courts, but that is so long as the Acts that allow for judicial review have not been disapplied under Part 2. We will have to come that point when we reach Part 2.
	Obviously, we all have to envisage the possibility of someone acting way beyond their powers and without reasonable care. But that is our duty when scrutinising legislation—particularly legislation such as this—that gives such extraordinary powers; powers about which many people beyond your Lordships' House are deeply concerned.
	I shall think more about the Minister's reply. I hope that before we come to Report stage he will think more about some of the serious and intelligent contributions made by all noble Lords. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 49:
	Page 7, line 14, leave out from first "by" to "but" in line 15 and insert "an order under section 5(1) or by regulations under section 6(1),"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: First, I shall deal with the government amendments in this group. In our discussion on the previous group of amendments I outlined the purpose of the power to issue urgent directions. While the Government firmly believe that these powers are necessary, we have looked again at their precise detail in light of the comments by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
	As currently drafted, Clauses 7 and 8 enable Ministers to issue a direction to a responder containing a provision that could be included in legislation under Part 1. A direction may be made only where there is an urgent need to do that, and where there is insufficient time for legislation to be made.
	The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee argued that, where regulations can be made using the negative resolution procedure, urgent directions are not required because regulations can be made against similar timescales. It also argued that the Government needed to give greater explanation as to why they needed oral direction powers, particularly in relation to Clauses 2 and 4, which relate largely to contingency planning.
	Having looked again at the issue in the light of the committee's comments, we agree that the case for urgent direction powers under Clauses 2 and 4—which are about planning for, rather than responding to, emergencies—are not sufficiently robust. On those grounds, the Government have tabled a set of amendments to turn off the urgent direction powers, both written and oral, for these clauses.
	However, the Government propose to retain powers of urgent direction in relation to Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 permits Ministers to make regulations requiring responders to perform a function in order to prevent the occurrence of an emergency; reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency; or taking another action in connection with an emergency. It is a wide-ranging power designed to enable the Government to ensure that preparation for, and response to, a specific emergency or threatened emergency is coherent and effective.
	As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recognised, the case for an urgent direction power in relation to Clause 5 is very different, as regulations are made according to the affirmative resolution procedure. There may well be situations where there is insufficient time to arrange for a debate in both Houses before issuing a direction. Furthermore, whereas Clauses 2 and 4 relate exclusively to contingency planning, Clause 5 does not, and contains powers that will be useful in responding to an emergency or threatened emergency. We therefore believe that it is justifiable to retain the oral direction powers under Clause 5. The case for urgent directions under Clause 6 is also strong, since it allows Ministers to make provision about information sharing, which may be required urgently in the face of an emergency.
	Turning to the other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 55 and 69 would mean that any urgent direction lapsed after seven days, rather than 21. I can agree with the sentiment behind that amendment—the Government are committed to ensuring that directions are kept in force only for the shortest possible time. To that effect, Clause 7(4)(b) provides that directions must be revoked as soon as is reasonably practicable.
	However, I cannot accept those amendments. While, in many cases, seven days will suffice for legislation to be made in the ordinary way, this will not always be the case. For example, regulations under Clause 5 are made according to the affirmative resolution procedure and a debate will need to be arranged. This could mean that seven days was not sufficient, particularly if Parliament was not sitting. It is for that reason that a maximum period of 21 days, along with a requirement to revoke as soon as is practicable, is more appropriate.
	Amendments Nos. 57, 58, 71 and 72 would limit the ability of Ministers to reissue a direction once it had lapsed. In effect, these amendments would prohibit the Minister from making more than two successive directions. We think that the amendments are largely unnecessary. The Bill provides that urgent directions can be made only where there is insufficient time for legislation to be made. Before making a further direction, the Minister must first be satisfied that that is, in fact, the case.
	In the case of directions containing provision requiring a responder to exercise one of its functions, the relevant legislation—an order under Clause 5—would be subject to an affirmative resolution. It might not be possible to ensure that the affirmative procedure had been completed before the first direction lapsed. But that should generally be possible by the time the second direction lapsed.
	None the less, there may be extreme cases where it is not possible to make appropriate legislation before the second direction expires. The obvious example is where the approval of both Houses is needed before legislating and Parliament is in recess. In the light of that possibility, we cannot accept the amendments.
	In Amendments Nos. 60 and 74 the noble Baroness seeks to probe the legal effect of an urgent direction. The Bill currently provides that a direction shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a provision of legislation made under the Bill. That means that a direction can be enforced through the courts under Clause 10. It also means that the provision for liaison with the devolved administrations applies to directions and that the powers to monitor compliance also apply. I beg to move and trust that the noble Baroness will not move her amendments.

Baroness Hamwee: Amendments Nos. 55, 58, 69 and 72 in this group (paired as 55 and 69, and 58 and 72) stand in our name. This is the kind of situation where I should like to read all the responses together because we have prepared our arguments on each part. Having heard what the Minister had to say, and knowing that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, does not wish to proceed with some of her amendments, the jigsaw is beginning to fall apart slightly.
	I heard what the Minister said about seven days being too short a period if Parliament is not sitting, and so on. I shall read what he said but, bluntly, I remain concerned about the possibility of considerable sloppiness if it is not necessary to take more formal steps more quickly than within the 21-day period mentioned in the Bill. When we are talking about oral directions which do not have to be produced in writing almost instantly, then one's concern is obviously increased.

The Earl of Onslow: One argument produced by the Minister was that this period of time could not be too short in case Parliament was not sitting. I should have thought that if an emergency was urgent, Parliament should be made to sit fairly sharpish. It should be summoned almost immediately if, as I assume, we are dealing with something extremely serious. If the situation is not serious, it should not have this amount of legislation devoted to it and such powers given to a Minister. One cannot have it both ways. If it is very serious, Parliament must come back almost instantly and then the Minister will have time to justify his regulations. If it is not serious, he will not need the power to give all the directions and so on within seven days.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I say in response to the point made by the noble Earl, that that is a debating point but I believe he would accept that there may well be circumstances when it is simply not appropriate to recall Parliament. We do not believe that the desire to apply normal periods of time is right in those circumstances. Of course, all governments would want to ensure that during an emergency Parliament was available and accessible so that matters could be debated properly. But we are trying to deal with some very difficult situations and trying to anticipate circumstances in which that may not be possible. It is for that reason that we believe that what we have in place achieves the right balance. One hopes that one is never in the position of the worst-case scenario, where the fundamentals of democratic scrutiny are undermined, but one can never be entirely sure.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Page 7, line 16, leave out "insufficient" and insert "no"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 50 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 64. They are straightforward amendments that we believe are necessary to clarify and to underpin the triple lock test to which the Government referred at Second Reading. We have tabled these amendments in order to ask the Minister to explain some of the drafting in Clauses 7 and 8. The current drafting states that a Minister can make directions if he feels that there is an urgent need to do so and that,
	"there is insufficient time for the regulations or order to be made".
	Our amendments would leave out the word "insufficient" and insert the word "no". We would like the Government to explain how much time would be regarded as insufficient. Would that not vary from Minister to Minister and be open to interpretation? Would it not be more sensible to have the drafting that we suggest, which seems a much more final and easy to understand test?
	We are talking about emergencies and the power of Ministers to act in extremis; powers that are enormously wide-ranging and, frankly, quite vague. Of course, we must not prevent the government of the day responding quickly to an emergency. However, a balance must be struck. In our view, "urgent" means so urgent that there is no time.
	The Bill in its title plays down the fact that we are debating the issue of emergencies and what they might include. We believe that it is important that through the passage of the Bill we make it clear that we believe that only in extremis, when there is no time, should those powers be enacted or played out by the Ministers concerned. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: I agree with the sentiment of the argument of the noble Baroness. But perhaps I can ask her what the difference is between "no time" and "insufficient time". I assume that she does not mean the words "no time" to mean literally from one minute to the next, or does she? Does "no time" in this situation mean overnight? I am trying to understand the distinction. I am quite puzzled.

Baroness Buscombe: By "no time" I mean no time in terms of allowing an opportunity to do anything other than issue, say, an oral direction. "Insufficient time" could be interpreted far more widely. One could say that "insufficient time" means, "There was not enough time for regulations to be made as we had only a day or two, so I"—a single Minister can carry out this function—"felt it was better to get on with it and issue an oral direction. Whereas "no time" makes it absolutely clear that it is so urgent that an oral direction could be deemed reasonable in the circumstances. I hope that that is clear.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I always take some minor delight when opposition parties argue among themselves. I have taken no especial delight in it during the course of this debate but it does help to clarify some of the issues.
	Clauses 7 and 8 provide for urgent direction powers to be used and that they must be in sufficient time to make legislation in the normal way. Amendments Nos. 50 and 64 would provide that there must be no time to make legislation in order for the powers to be used.
	I appreciate the noble Baroness's concern to ensure that the test is as tight as possible. I concede that this power is unusual and should be available only where there is a real need for it.
	We have had a lot of discussion around these points and we have looked at the power again in light of the amendments tabled by noble Lords on the particular subject and also in the light of the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It is for that reason that we limited the urgent direction power to Clauses 5 and 6. It might just help if I explain some of the situations in which urgent directions of this kind would be issued.
	Clause 5 enables orders to be made which require a responder to exercise its functions in relation to an emergency. Such orders can be made only after both Houses have approved a draft of the order. The time taken to secure a debate in each House might be significant and Parliament may be adjourned or prorogued. In such cases, there may be insufficient time to make an order under Clause 5 and an urgent direction would be appropriate.
	Regulations under Clause 6 can require responders to share information with each other. These are subject to negative resolution. In the vast majority of cases it would be possible to make regulations. Clause 6 regulations could be made extremely quickly and could be brought into force before the regulations had been laid before Parliament, if need be. None the less, there may be cases where it is not possible to make regulations in this way. It would still take time to draft the legislation and there may not be a lawyer available to draft it.
	In an emergency, even an hour's delay could be dangerous. As we shall discuss in further detail on the next group of amendments, there may be situations where there is insufficient time to commit the direction to writing and send it to the recipient. There may well be situations where time is so pressing that an oral direction to share information is what is required.
	For example, in Japan in 1995, following the terrorist attack on the Tokyo underground, the inability of government to put other health bodies immediately in touch with medical scientists with direct hospital experience of sarin and its effects, is claimed to have inhibited diagnosis and treatment of casualties. If time permitted, regulations would be made under Clause 6 to require responders to share certain information. But, if there was insufficient time to draft and make regulations, it may be appropriate to require, by way of direction, a local responder to provide information to another responder.
	It is in those sorts of circumstances, which I think one could fairly argue are health-related and simply humanitarian, that one would seek to use the direction powers in the way in which we have described.
	I can assure the Committee that the Government would use urgent directions only where they were quite genuinely necessary and where they had to be used in the circumstances that I have described. Where at all possible they would always seek to legislate in the normal way. The requirement that there is insufficient time to legislate achieves this effect.
	I hope that, having heard that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: Building on that example, and looking back at Clause 6, is the Minister suggesting that regulations under Clause 6 about disclosure of information will require a direction for them to bite? Unless that is the case, perhaps I may gently suggest that sharing information is not a very good example because the previous clause deals with it.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: I wonder whether that was an intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on my noble friend's speech. If so, I shall reserve what I have to say until a later stage.

Baroness Hamwee: I apologise. I was not being very formal because we are in Committee.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have heard what the noble Baroness has said.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, replies, I would like her to resolve a puzzlement in my mind. I understand her to be arguing that there is a distinction between "no time" and "insufficient time". On that basis, supposing that there is some time to make regulations but that it is insufficient to make them, is she saying that there should not be a power to make a directive, so that we would have neither the regulations nor a directive?

Baroness Buscombe: The point is well made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. Perhaps I should think about it. My point was that we believe that the power to make an oral direction should be given only if there is so little time that nothing could be written down. I understood that even in days of old when we went into battle, somebody wrote notes to tell everybody what to do.
	We are talking about somebody just giving an oral direction. Therefore, we are focusing on the extent of the power, with precious few safeguards, if I may put it that way. However, I take on board what the noble and learned Lord said: perhaps we are going a step too far, in the sense that we would remove the opportunity for any direction if there were no time. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 51 and 52:
	Page 7, line 16, leave out "regulations or order" and insert "order or regulations"
	Page 7, leave out line 18 and insert "an order under section 5(1) or by regulations under section 6(1)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 7, line 19, leave out "may be written or oral" and insert "shall be written"

Baroness Buscombe: The amendment relates to the question of whether a direction should be oral or written. It is important to debate the issues, to help us appreciate why such extraordinarily wide powers are being introduced in this enabling Bill. In moving Amendment No. 53, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 59, 67 and 73. The amendments deal with the question of urgency, covered in Clauses 7 and 8. They would ensure that any direction by a Minister to make regulations urgently would be written.
	We hope and understand that Clauses 7 and 8 would be used only in a real emergency—that is, not very often, if at all. We also understand that any such use would be in a situation that would require swift action. However, we feel that, even in such a situation, it is best practice to write such directions down; indeed, it would be common sense to do so. We are talking about situations in which spur of the moment decisions may not be the best ones. Taking the time to write something down may give a Minister a chance to think.
	British Telecom wrote to us with concerns about the matter as follows:
	"we believe that the ability to make oral directions where an emergency has not been declared is not warranted".
	That is an important point. If an emergency has not already been declared, such a measure is not warranted. The letter continues:
	"If it is determined that speed is of the essence in establishing important requirements in such circumstances, then a written Notice under the hand of the relevant Minister should be issued to the relevant body or person. Oral directions are open to interpretation and abuse and it is difficult to envisage when oral direction would be necessary in a non-emergency situation, where speed of reaction cannot be that critical".
	It is also important, when the crisis—whatever it might be—is over, to be able to review how things were handled and consider what went right and what went wrong. It will be essential to see how the Government reacted to what happened, so a written record should be kept of what the Minister ordered. I have in mind an expression used in the Butler report—"sofa politics", I think it was. That impinges on the point. With regard to the government of the day or any succeeding government, it is surely better for everybody concerned, including the Minister and his or her colleagues and officials, that, no matter how urgent the situation, something is written down to clarify matters.
	I wish to refer to a letter, dated 22 July, addressed by the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in response to a concern that he expressed at Second Reading. The Minister referred to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform in response to the Civil Contingencies Bill and its concerns regarding oral versus written directions. He said:
	"In light of the Committee's report, I have asked officials to look at these points again and ensure that the power to issue an urgent written direction in these circumstances is warranted, particularly in relation to clauses 2 and 4. I expect that work to be completed in time for the Committee stage".
	I apologise to noble Lords; I am trying to be brief rather than read out the whole letter. The Minister continues in his letter:
	"The Committee query in particular the circumstances in which a written direction would be given under Clause 7 . . . which contains a provision which would otherwise be contained in regulations subject to the negative procedure".
	I hope that the Minister has considered what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said at Second Reading and the response of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform to the Bill. I hope that he will respond positively to our amendments. I beg to move.

Lord McNally: We give the strongest possible support to the amendments. Ministers should ponder the fact that one of the strictures mentioned in the Butler report was the habit that has grown under this administration of informal meetings, with various memories of what was decided. Even in the height of battle it is very sensible to record what is ordered and what the responses are. Nothing could make the handling of an emergency more perilous than oral orders. We all know the jokes about Chinese whispers; that would be the exact danger. I suspect that the utilities are afraid of misunderstanding and misdirection because of oral communication. We live in a world of very sophisticated written messaging, so I cannot see why these amendments should not be accepted.

Lord Lucas: I agree entirely with both noble Lords who have spoken. Beyond anything else, we have enacted legislation that extends the meaning of the word "written" to include any authenticated electronic communication. If the Minister has been properly equipped, he should be able to communicate by any practical modern means, including writing as it is now understood, with whoever is supposed to be in receipt of the order.
	Anyway, we are dealing not with an emergency but with planning for an emergency. It is not a second's delay that matters; there must be the odd minute to put pen to paper. If we are making regulations, we must be asking someone to do either something illegal or not within their current powers or something that is against what they wish to do.
	Under either of those circumstances, it is of the utmost importance that it is put in writing. That is the proper way to proceed. One might think about it under Part 2 where it may be necessary to pick up a telephone and say, "Close Oxford Street" rather than having to find somewhere to fax that instruction. Under Part 1, it seems entirely inappropriate and only likely to lead to disputes afterwards about what was actually said, which would be quite unnecessary and to no benefit.

Viscount Brookeborough: I support the amendment. It seems that the use of the word "orally" in this Bill is taken in isolation of the fact that we have entered the technological world. We are not dealing in pre-First World War semaphore or in only the spoken word. It is as simple as that.
	I have a mobile telephone that is no more sophisticated than those of many noble Lords. However, it receives e-mails. What are all those Ministers' cars with aerials sticking out of them for?
	I have lived in Northern Ireland for my whole life. During the past 30 years we have lived in a state of actual emergency, let alone urgency. There is no single action taken by the emergency services that is not written down: it is a written instruction. What is more, a reply is received to say that it is understood or, indeed, a question is received, asking, "Why are you talking such rubbish?".
	In my mind, there is absolutely no question about it. We could not have got to where we have in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in Iraq without every single instruction being written down and verified. I simply think that there has been no communication with whoever made that up or with anyone who is technologically minded. It would create not a bureaucratic paper nightmare but a verbal shambles.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I speak as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It so happens that the committee met yesterday. Its 30th report is among the papers laid before us for this debate. In the course of that meeting, I inquired whether the Minister had written again since 22 July or whether we could infer that the Minister regarded the matter as now having been settled. I am alluding to the matters in our report that were raised by my noble friend Lady Buscombe.
	Because we had not heard, the committee inferred that the Minister regarded the matter as satisfactorily concluded. In the circumstances, I am looking forward to what the Minister has to say about paragraph 7 of his letter of 22 July, which begins,
	"In the light of the Committee's report, I have asked officials to look at these points again and ensure that the power to issue an urgent written direction in these circumstances is warranted, particularly in relation to clauses 2 and 4. I expect that work to be completed in time for the Committee stage".
	I had not expected that I was going to be able to get the question which I asked yesterday in the Committee answered so rapidly on the Floor of the House.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise with some hesitation at this stage, particularly because my noble friend Lord Jopling mentioned the possibility of the breakdown of electronic communications. That can happen if there is an appropriate sort of nuclear blast.
	But whether communications are available or not seems to be neither here nor there. If a Minister is going to issue an order of any sort, even if it would communicate with no one, it should be written down. Then there is no question about its content and where it is supposed to be directed. Even if, ultimately, it has to be delivered by hand by some slow means, at least it is clear and everyone will understand it. If it is oral, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has mentioned, we are into the problem of Chinese whispers, which would be very dangerous indeed. It must be written down.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: There has been much discussion about the Delegated Powers Committee, its suggestions and propositions. Of course, Members of the Committee are right to seek a clear and convincing case for oral directions. I have little doubt that that is the purpose behind these amendments. It would mean that all directions in all the circumstances we have discussed would have to be made in writing.
	That is desirable, but I question whether it is ultimately sensible. Wherever possible, of course Ministers would seek to put directions in writing, which would offer greater clarity and minimise the scope for confusion as well as—although it is plainly obvious—adding to accountability. That is because what is written down in black and white in front of one is much more challengeable at a later stage.
	However, there are two sets of circumstances in which oral directions may be required. First, in an emergency the normal arrangements for communications may become unavailable. One could envisage a situation in which the postal system might be disrupted and where electronic means of communication have been brought down or disrupted by a power cut. An oral communication may be the only practicable option.

Lord Lucas: If there are no means of electronic communication, how is the oral direction to be given if you are out of earshot?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is plain that if one is giving an instruction orally, one would not necessarily be shouting. I think that the noble Lord understands the point I am trying to make.

Lord Elton: What we are asking for here is that there should be an accurate and reliable record of what is done for purposes not only of history but also of litigation. Therefore it would suffice in the circumstances that the noble Lord is describing if the order is written down first and then read out, but not that it is delivered orally and then recollected only some days later, to be jotted down inaccurately on a piece of paper.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Of course it would be desirable to do that, but if one has to act quickly in an emergency, it may not be possible first to write the order down and then read it out. It may well be that the instruction has to be given orally. However, one would seek to ensure that any oral direction is confirmed in writing as soon as possible. That is desirable and sensible for all the reasons outlined by noble Lords.
	There may be other situations in which time is of the essence and where there is merit in being able to issue directions as quickly as possible, subsequently to be confirmed in writing. In the face of a specific threat requiring an immediate response, a direction may need to be given in a matter of minutes, perhaps even seconds. Matters might be all the more pressing in the aftermath of a terrorist incident, in particular where there are fears of a multi-faceted attack. Those are the situations we are talking about.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised the issue of the utilities and their concerns. Directions can be given only in accordance with a responder's duties under the Bill. Utility companies such as BT are category 2 responders and as such are only subject to duties to share information and co-operate. Therefore it would not be possible, and indeed it would be inappropriate, for a direction to be given in the terms suggested by the noble Baroness; in other words, it can be given only in relation to the responsibilities of the utility.
	I take up the further point raised by the noble Baroness, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, relating to correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, about concerns raised in the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform about oral directions under Clauses 2 and 4. I think that I have fairly dealt with this issue in earlier amendments. The Government have thought further about oral directions in relation to these clauses, and for that reason we have brought forward the amendments just agreed by noble Lords to remove the power to issue any direction, either written or oral, under Clauses 2 or 4. That is all I have to add on the subject.

Lord Lucas: Can the Minister give an example of a situation under Clauses 2(3), 4(2) or 6(1) where the time taken to write something down rather than just speak it would make a difference? We are not dealing with an emergency itself, but with preparing for an emergency here. How can 30 seconds make a difference to anything which can be done under any of those powers? I await an example.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I said, we may well be dealing with an emergency and it may well be the case that a direction has to be given orally. It would be our expectation that that direction would be sent in writing at a later stage and as soon as practically reasonable in the circumstances.
	The noble Lord would not thank any government Minister—either from my government or from a future government featuring the Conservative Party—if, for the sake of giving a quick oral direction, there was some further calamity or tragedy or the emergency was made worse in any way. It is important to realise and sense that we are talking about situations where people's lives are at risk and where it is important that someone literally gives an instruction at that moment so that something can be done.
	Of course it is right that it should be subsequently put in writing and confirmed in that way; and of course it is right that that is done as a matter of urgency. The example I gave earlier about the Tokyo underground and the sarin attacks is a perfectly reasonable and respectable one in the circumstances.

Lord McNally: Perhaps the Minister will go a little further on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Have the Government gone through scenarios with the utilities, most of which are now private companies and will be jealous of commercial confidentiality and other aspects? Will they really respond to oral requests as the Minister is saying? Have the Government talked this through with them? It is no use suddenly sending an oral request and getting the response, "Let me have that in writing".
	I appreciate that we are talking about emergency situations, but I still get the impression that companies which may be subject to litigation against them for actions taken will be very cautious about this. The idea that it can all be done by word of mouth is rather optimistic.

Lord Lucas: If you are being asked to respond to an oral instruction, how do you know who it is from unless you have had something which is the equivalent to—or at least takes as much time as—receiving the request in writing?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord is right to ask the question. But it comes back to having confidence and trust in the situation. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised a pertinent point about commercial confidentiality. That is why I made the point earlier that this would relate specifically to that particular utility's range of responsibilities and so on.
	We have to assume that in extremis people will accept that it is not unreasonable for someone to rapidly give an oral instruction where that is sensible in the circumstances. We will have to rely on good sense to prevail in such cases. I do not think we could work it any other way.
	I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, quoting the correspondence from BT. I shall undertake to ensure that we have more consultation with the commercial utilities, for want of a better description. My understanding is that, by and large, they are satisfied with the arrangements described in the legislation. However, there is no point in legislating to that effect and subsequently finding out that it will not work because they will not sign up to it. I am fairly confident that they will, but I shall check back on that precise point.

Lord Elton: Will the Minister also be in contact with the authorities referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and ask them how they manage?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I hear what the noble Lord says. He has a wealth of experience in this matter and we shall reflect on the point he has made.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I hope that this is a relevant question. Clause 7(2) has been alluded to in the debate. Clause 16(1) states:
	"A Minister of the Crown shall consult the National Assembly for Wales before . . .
	(d) giving a direction under section 7(2) which makes provision relating wholly or partly to Wales of a kind that could be made by regulations under section 2(3), 4(2) or 6(1)".
	If he is going to have time to consult the National Assembly for Wales, it would appear at first blush that there would be time for him to write it down.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord makes a good point. More particularly, we are talking about a different set of scenarios. The one that I have used as an example is probably the more likely circumstance.
	I have listened very carefully to what has been said. Perhaps, between now and Report, I will try to provide those who have contributed to the discussion with some more hardened examples. We are all searching for ways to ensure that this works in practice.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply. I hope that he will more than think about other hardened examples, and think about a number of the questions raised and statements made by noble Lords which encourage me seriously to consider returning to this point at Report. I do not want to dwell on it now but I believe that we are talking about a very serious issue. I am not persuaded that oral direction is appropriate for the very reason that oral directions are so often open to interpretation.
	As my noble friend Lord Lucas has also pointed out, we are talking about civil protection here—we have not reached Part 2 yet. So the incidences where an oral direction could ever be appropriate are hard to think of.
	This does not make sense. When we are in government, after the next election, I believe that we would much rather be in a position in which we would have to write down everything that was done in relation to civil protection and emergency powers because otherwise the repercussions could be very great—too great.
	Again, I refer to a point I made earlier which was also made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Look what happened with regard to the Butler report. We still have not got to the bottom of what happened and what was said. Not enough was written down. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 54:
	Page 7, line 24, leave out from "of" to "and" in line 25 and insert "an order under section 5(1) or by way of regulations under section 6(1)),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 56:
	Page 7, line 27, after "given" insert "or when the Minister accepts that the emergency (as defined in section 1) has ended, whichever the sooner"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 56, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 70. They concern Clauses 7(4)(c) and 8(4)(c) respectively. The current drafting of the Bill states that where a Minister uses the powers given under Clauses 7 and 8, the direction shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 21 days. Amendments No. 56 and 70 would add the words,
	"or when the Minister accepts that the emergency (as defined in section 1) has ended, whichever the sooner".
	The amendments would give more flexibility to both clauses. The Bill as drafted will ensure that any directions would stay in place for 21 days. However, there may be situations in which regulations may only be relevant to a smaller time frame. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I have a question for the Minister. In Part 2 of the Bill, which contains what I would call parallel powers, the duration of the order can be 28 days for some reason. I cannot help but feel that for the sake of tidiness and consistency it would be better if Part 2 of the Bill were consistent with Part 1 in that regard. Will the Minister undertake to look at that at this stage, which might give him a chance to deal with it favourably when we reach Part 2?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is a helpful question, given that it was asked in advance of that debate. I shall ask why we have a different time frame.
	Amendments Nos. 56 and 70 would provide that any urgent directions given would cease to have effect when the Minister accepted that the emergency had ended. I can obviously accept the thrust of the amendment—I think that we would all agree with it. Given the nature of the powers, one would not wish urgent directions to remain in force when they are no longer needed.
	However, the amendments are perhaps based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of Clause 7. Directions may be given when there is no emergency. The Minister has to be satisfied only that "there is an urgent need to make provision". Such a need could arise in advance of an event occurring; for example, where there is a threat of a terrorist attack which requires urgent preventive action. Equally, urgent directions may be required in the recovery phase, once an emergency has ended.
	The amendments could give rise to serious practical difficulties, which could hinder the effective management of an emergency. First, there may be disagreements as to when the emergency has ended, leading to uncertainty whether a direction has ceased to have effect. Secondly, even where a direction is issued in the midst of an emergency, there may be a need to maintain the direction in force after the emergency has ended to ensure that the recovery phase proceeds in the right way and that a full recovery can be effectively managed.
	I agree that a direction should be revoked as soon as it is no longer required. To this effect, Clause 7(4)(b) already provides that the Minister must revoke the direction as soon as is practicable. In practice, that will be because it has been possible to make legislation in the ordinary way or because the urgent direction is simply no longer required for the effective management of a challenging event or situation.
	The core of the Government's argument is that the Bill already provides the protection that the amendments seek. In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister sits down, can he give the House an example of an order that he might give in anticipation of a terrorist event? If I was a terrorist, I could have a lot of fun with Ministers on that basis and cause a great deal of administrative chaos to boot.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: A situation might arise where an order had to be made to close roads or send traffic in a different direction because one thought there might be an imminent terrorist attack. One might need to deal with those kinds of situations.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Given that we have special phone numbers on which to report terrorist intent, some jokers could have quite a deal of fun. We need to be extremely cautious about anticipatory orders.

Lord Lucas: Out of interest, which part of Sections 2(3), 4(2) or 6(1) could be used to close roads?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has lost me there. I shall have to go away and look that one up.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. He may be pleased to learn that I accept what he said, which makes a change. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 57 to 60 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Page 7, line 32, leave out from first "of" to end of line 33 and insert "an order under section 5(1) or of regulations under section 6(1)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Urgency: Scotland]:
	[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 7, line 37, leave out from first "by" to "but" in line 38 and insert "an order under section 5(2) or by regulations under section 6(2),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 65 and 66:
	Page 7, line 39, leave out "regulations or order" and insert "order or regulations"
	Page 7, line 41, leave out from first "by" to end of line 42 and insert "an order under section 5(2) or by regulations under section 6(2)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Page 8, line 6, leave out from second "of" to "and" in line 7 and insert "an order under section 5(2) or by way of regulations under section 6(2)),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 69 to 74 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 75:
	Page 8, line 14, leave out from first "of" to end of line 15 and insert "an order under section 5(2) or of regulations under section 6(2)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Monitoring by Government]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Lucas: This was the clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, pointed as containing the powers that the Government would use to obtain the information they needed to play their proper part in provision for civil contingencies, but I have considerable difficulty in reading it that way. They can use Clause 1,
	"to provide information about action taken by the person or body for the purpose of complying with a duty".
	So the Government can say, "Have you discovered what telecommunication facilities will be available to you in the event of various emergencies?", to which Brighton or wherever can say, "Yes". That is not much use for the Government in making their own plans, though they can ask a location to explain why they have not discovered that information, if they have not done so. That is the sort of level of information that can be obtained under this clause.
	However, let us look at what sort of information the Government need. Let us suppose there is a major incident, something by way of a national emergency. Let us suppose that someone sets off a thermonuclear device in the middle of London. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam—fortunate enough to be in Brighton at the time, and the wind from the south—survives comfortably and is the Minister then in charge of the Government. What information does he need the Government to have at their fingertips?
	The Government will need to understand the structure of the telecommunication and other communication services, the capacity of the road networks around London and how fuel supplies are routed round the country, presuming that the M25 is unavailable. All sorts of other information will be necessary to the proper operation of the country in the follow-up to such a disaster. But this Bill gives the Government no access to that information. Individual local authorities have access to that information, or to bits of it, but the Government have no access that I can see under this clause or anywhere else in the Bill.
	That will apply similarly to other government departments. How will the Department of Health know what is available in ambulance capacity or the other resources it may need to respond to a large emergency if it does not have the powers under the Bill which will be enjoyed by individual local authorities?
	Everything is fragmented under the Bill. The knowledge, understanding and response are there, and that seems to be entirely right in dealing with emergencies that are fundamentally local in character. But if we get something national and require a nationally co-ordinated response—which will come, as the Minister said, from the mechanism set up in government for the government departments—some ministry will be there as the responsible body. To respond effectively to a national emergency, that ministry will need a body of information, just as a local authority needs a body of information, to know where to start from. It is too late to find out what is going on when the emergency has actually happened. But under the Bill the Government cannot even ask the local authorities for the information that they already have, let alone the responders in Schedule 1—and, anyway, all that should have happened beforehand.
	I do not see that the answer that the Minister gave earlier about how the Government get their information is contained in this clause, and I should like to pursue that question further.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord will have heard me explain that the clause is designed to enable the Government—and in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers—to obtain information from responders about the performance of their duties under Part 1. That serves two purposes. First, it will support the legislation-making powers conferred by the Bill and allows the Government to establish an evidence base for decisions about whether further regulations or guidance are required. Secondly, information could be gathered to facilitate enforcement.
	The noble Lord asks whether that is the only power that the Government have in relation to civil contingencies. The answer is, of course not. The power to obtain information is primarily designed to support the Government's role in civil protection at the local level. The information that they need therefore is there to enable them to make regulations under the Bill. The Government have a range of other powers to obtain information under regulatory regimes applying to utilities, for example. Other information will be shared on what we hope will by then be a well established, well tried and well tested basis. The facility is designed to work as part of a broader scheme of things. The information powers are in part designed to ensure that they support the Government's overall role in providing for civil protection.

Lord Lucas: I see what the Government are saying in the first part of that response, which is that the clause does what they think it does—and I agree with that. It provides them with a mechanism for watching what is happening at the local level. However, I return to the question of how the Government get the information that they need to play their role. The Minister said that there was other legislation containing other powers that enable them to get that information. I do not expect the Minister to do so now, but I would be grateful if he could give me a list of the powers that substitute in that respect for the powers that are contained in Clause 6 and earlier clauses of this Bill as regards local authorities. In other words, how do the Government obtain the equivalent access?
	The Minister also implied that the Government in some way have access to the information that local authorities have obtained. I do not see where the power is under the Bill to do that, unless it comes from the very looseness of the wording, which we discussed earlier. In other words, when local authorities have obtained the information, they can do what they like with it, and as long as they wanted it for the emergency situations there are no restrictions on them. Perhaps that looseness is being used by the Government to enable them to extract information from local authorities and build their database that way. That would be a sensible way of doing it, but I would rather see the power in the Bill than have it there as part of a general looseness, so that local authorities—and, presumably, the Government—can do whatever they like with the information. I would like to be clear how the Government are getting their information.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: What is the noble Lord's real concern here? As I understand the general drift of the debate, I believe that there is a general acceptance that in these situations we are all seeking as people of good faith to work together to ensure that the information flows are operable, so that we can counter any given emergency situation and further protect the public. I do not quite see the difficulty on which the noble Lord seems fixed. I assume that we are all working towards a generally desirable objective. In any event, much of the information will be in the public domain, and I have no doubt that much of it would already have transferred between central and local government. In terms of how local government is performing, it will have tried and tested its various plans, planning procedures and so on. I am not sure what evil the noble Lord sees here. Perhaps he does not; perhaps I misunderstand him.

Lord Lucas: What I am after is information, certainly at this stage. I am pursuing two earlier sallies. On one, I tried to bring central government under the same regime and duties as local authorities. The noble Lord says that that does not need to be done, as everything is being done in a rather informal way centrally. That is fine, but show me the information that will be used to make the decisions, otherwise I will find it very hard to believe that the Government are taking their duties seriously. I am happy to receive a written response on that. I want to know the Government's information sources.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to do that and, if it is required, to find a list of some of the other powers to which I alluded earlier.

Viscount Brookeborough: Before we move on, I want to ask a question that has intrigued me. It may have been asked before I came into the Chamber, in which case I apologise. In terms of Ministers acting, why does the Bill require a "Minister of the Crown" yet a group of "Scottish Ministers" in all cases? Incidentally, several Scottish Ministers would have to meet, so could write down anything that they did.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It will depend on what the particular Minister or Ministers in Scotland are responsible for, and on which Minister of the Crown is appropriate in the circumstances. That is all that is meant. I am also advised that it is standard drafting practice; that is really reassuring, is it not?

Lord McNally: I want to inquire on another aspect of the gathering of information. As I said, the utilities are almost all in private hands. One point made to us is that the way in which they are asked to co-operate varies from local authority to local authority, and from region to region. They are concerned that they will be asked consistently to reinvent the wheel in answering questions or providing information. It was urged on us that there should be some common template of information in various regions and local authorities, which would make it easier for them to co-operate in providing information.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suspect that there will be a standard format, but that what might be asked of a utility in one area may have to be different from a request made of a utility in another, because of varying circumstances and the way in which an emergency impacts differently in a different locality. I am thinking of how a flood may vary in extent between two or three regions, depending on geography and the nature and persistence of the incident. The questions may be standard, but different points may have to be asked of one of the power providers or water utilities.

Viscount Brookeborough: I have one last point. In a situation that has been declared an urgency or emergency—that may be a threat to people's lives—why does one need statutory power to ask for details of anything that has an effect under the Bill? I do not understand why one needs the power to be statutory. Having declared the state of affairs, one should be able to ask anyone anything that has a bearing on the situation.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Because that is how we are governed in this country. It is subject to law and statute, and is challengeable through the judicial process. But the noble Lord is right—if an emergency is declared, certain things will have to follow and will flow. In essence, the legislation acts as a guide and a framework for action and activity.

Lord Lucas: I should be grateful for the reply he promised to the first question. Would the Minister please extend the letter to my second question—do central Government envisage that they will be able to lay their hands on the information that local authorities are accumulating under Clause 6 and similar provisions in the Bill; and if so, under which power could that happen? Or is it because there is no restriction?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I undertake to cover that point in my reply.

Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clauses 10 to 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Scotland: cross-border collaboration]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 76:
	Page 11, line 1, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [National Assembly for Wales]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 77:
	Page 11, line 24, leave out "2(3), 4(2) or"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 78:
	Page 11, line 45, after "paragraph" insert "4,"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This group of amendments includes a number of government amendments. I shall speak to those first and then turn my attention to the others in the group.
	The Government propose making two minor and technical changes to the list of responder bodies in Schedule 1. Each of these amendments has become necessary as a result of legislative changes made by recent Acts of Parliament. Our dear old friend the Fire and Rescue Services Act is one of them. It renames "fire authorities" as "fire and rescue authorities". A consequential amendment is needed to the entry in Schedule 1. In addition, functions in relation to fire and rescue authorities in Wales are conferred, for the first time, on the Assembly. In the light of that, a consequential amendment is needed to Clause 16, covering the involvement of the Assembly, to ensure that Assembly consent is needed before legislation is made under this Bill in relation to fire and rescue authorities in Wales. This reflects the approach taken under the Bill in relation to other responders which are subject to Assembly oversight.
	The Health Protection Agency Act is another measure which has a bearing on the Bill. It creates a new body called the Health Protection Agency as a statutory body. The existing HPA, which is a Special Health Authority, will cease to exist. An amendment to Schedule 1, which refers to the HPA as an SHA, will be required.
	I also note that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has tabled a number of amendments intended to probe the rationale for including rail freight operators in the Bill. I look forward to hearing what he has to say on that issue and to having the opportunity to respond. Rather than deal with those amendments now, I shall do so after the noble Lord has spoken to them. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: I rise to speak to the three amendments in this group which stand in my name—that is, Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and 86. It is logical that we talk about all these responder bodies together, although I believe that there are a few omissions from the list and I know that other noble Lords want to add some others, but that is all part of the debate.
	I remind the Committee that I am talking about the transport section in category 2 under Part 3 on page 25 of the Bill. Under that section, the various lists of organisations and bodies which must respond include all licensed train operators under Section 8 of the Railways Act 1993. In fact, the Bill does not quite refer to licensed train operators but to those who hold licences. It includes Network Rail, 25 or so passenger train operators, about eight contracting companies which have licences and carry out maintenance, such as Balfour Beatty, Jarvis and Carillion, and currently, I believe, six freight operating companies. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
	The problem is that, as many of those companies—certainly all the maintenance and freight ones—are open-access operators across the network, which means that they can go anywhere, I am told that each would have to attend at least two meetings a year with each of the 43 police forces. These people are all in the private sector and, we hope, have profits to make, but the provision places an enormous obligation on them. Therefore, I question why rail freight operators and contractors are included in the list.
	I can see why infrastructure managers across all modes are included; I think that that is reasonable. They include London Underground, Transport for London, airport operators, harbour authorities and highway authorities, and I think it is reasonable that they should all be included. But when talking about those who operate on these pieces of infrastructure, where are the road freight operators? Where are the bus companies and the shipping lines and airlines? They are in exactly the same position as the train operators.
	I then ask: what is the purpose of all those people being included? If, in an emergency, the Government wanted to see freight moved around, I imagine that they would probably go to a logistics trucking company rather than a rail freight company because it would be so much more flexible.
	Contractors are included in the list. If it is necessary to include contractors so that the Government can do what they want on the railways, does not the same apply to the roads, the highways and the motorways? Often, the same companies are contracting on the roads. The same applies to shipping and airlines. Therefore, why are the train companies and the freight companies, in particular, included as an operator above the ground?
	I have received a great deal of briefing from many people on this issue. One representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers opined that the reason was that the Home Office thought that rail freight was still in the public sector and therefore it could be controlled. That situation is 10 years out of date and I am sure that the Home Office does not hold that view but, frankly, rail freight and road freight are both in the private sector. They both compete very hard and very effectively, and I strongly believe that, if one is in, both are in but preferably they are both out.
	That is all that I want to say in relation to the first two amendments, other than that I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Scotland for the number of letters that she has exchanged with me on this subject over the past few months.
	Since the previous day of the Committee stage, I know that some freight operators have met officials and I believe they have received an assurance that they do not need to attend 86 meetings a year because Network Rail can do it for them. I think that they are happy with that but, if that is the case, I suggest that my amendment should be accepted and that those operators should not appear on the face of the Bill; they should simply let Network Rail act on their behalf.
	Finally, I read a very odd comment in a letter from my noble friend Lady Scotland. She said that rail freight was included, not because it might help in an emergency but because it was a threat. In other words, it might be blown up, so it needs controlling.
	The same view has been expressed by very eminent people who have been putting together London's Olympic bid. I discovered that the bid to the Olympic Committee in Geneva said that all rail freight would be stopped from going through Stratford, which is a major hub for rail freight, during the six or seven weeks of the games because it was a threat.
	Eventually I found out who put the bid together and I asked why they had said that. The response was, "We thought that the Olympic Committee in Geneva would like to hear that". I said, "That is not a very good reason. Did you not consult the Government's security people? They are called Transec". They are part of the Department of Transport, as many noble Lords will know. The answer from the Olympic bid people was, "No—who are they?" They had not consulted them, nor the Metropolitan Police, so I took it upon myself to offer them a meeting with both of those bodies. The meeting went very well and I now have letters from both of those bodies withdrawing their objections.
	If it is standard government policy that freight trains blow up and lorries do not, we need to look at the detail. Certainly the Metropolitan Police and the Department for Transport security people say that that is not so. I urge my noble friend to look at this matter again. I shall certainly not press any of my amendments today. I am merely looking for an explanation. Perhaps we can move on to ask what is really necessary to suit the needs of this Bill, and not give people unlimited numbers of meetings around the country just because it says so on the face of the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall go over the points raised by the noble Lord, but first I shall give some background.
	Parts 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 set out a list of category 2 responders. They are the "co-operating" responders, who are less likely to be involved in the heart of multi-agency planning work, but who will be heavily involved in incidents that affect their sectors.
	The duties on category 2 bodies are much less demanding, and reflect their supporting role. Category 2 responder status will mean that organisations will be required to co-operate with other responders through local resilience forums and to supply information where requested to do so.
	Category 2 responders are generally organisations that already have direct responsibilities to the public, either because they administer risk sources or deliver essential services. In most cases, category 2 responders, which as we have discussed before, include the utilities, transport companies and infrastructure providers, are already subject to a range of sector specific civil protection duties by virtue of their licensing or regulatory regimes. We have given those bodies a more limited set of obligations in order to avoid confusion or conflict with these sector-specific regimes. Those are intended primarily to ensure that category 2 responders are more closely engaged with wider multi-agency planning. That is the framework thinking behind it.
	The noble Lord seeks more explanation by tabling his amendments as they are. Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 would remove rail freight operators from the list of category 2 responders. The Government have given careful consideration to the membership of category 2. In doing that, we have undertaken consultation with key stakeholders, and have subjected it to two public consultations. We feel that, on balance, we have it right. We have no plans to amend the Bill in the way the noble Lord suggests.
	Rail freight operators administer a significant risk source, and like passenger train operators, it can only be right that they are brought more directly into local emergency planning arrangements. Indeed, I am sure that the noble Lord would accept that it would be anomalous to include passenger train operators and not to include rail freight operators who share the same fixed network as both can be involved in local emergencies. It can only be right that they are both more firmly embedded in local civil protection arrangements.
	The first consultation on the draft Bill demonstrated support among category 1 responders for the inclusion of rail freight operators in category 2. There is a feeling that these companies have not been as involved in local emergency planning arrangements as they might be, and that the Bill is a way of remedying that fact.
	I understand the noble Lord is concerned about the regulatory impact that category 2 status will impose on rail freight operators. The Government are aware of the industry's concerns about the burden the Bill could impose on them. We conducted a thorough assessment of the costs and benefits of the Bill with that very much in mind. The public consultation on the Bill was accompanied by a partial regulatory impact assessment. We specifically sought consultees' comments on our assumptions. The main conclusion of the RIA was that the regulatory impact of the Bill on the private sector is small and that the costs are significantly outweighed by the benefits.
	Cabinet Office officials are working closely with the full range of category 2 responders to ensure that the regulatory burden on them is kept to a minimum. I give as an example the current draft regulations which provide that responders need only be "effectively represented" at local resilience forum meetings. I understand that at a recent meeting there was a consensus among officials that all parties were content for Network Rail to represent freight carriers where that was thought most appropriate.
	Furthermore, the guidance will give a clear indication of what is reasonable in terms of information demands, and ensure that the burden of information demands is kept to a minimum, so that there will be a common format for information requests, or to use the term of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, a "template", and there will be a need to justify the need for particular information requests.
	The Cabinet Office is keen to continue its dialogue with the rail freight industry about any remaining concerns. I understand that a meeting has now taken place to ensure that that is taken forward. I hope the noble Lord shares my confidence that we can operate on the basis of a consensus.
	The road freight industry has probably inspired Amendment No. 86. In contrast to the rail freight operators, road freight operators have not been included. A number of consultees argued that road freight operators should also be included within civil protection arrangements. The Government take the view that it would not be appropriate to include road freight operators at this stage. In part that is because of the practical difficulties of involving the numerous and—I think it has to be said—disparate elements of the road haulage community, if one can describe it in those terms, in local civil protection arrangements. Whereas there are only four major freight train operating companies, the number of freight operators is, as is fairly obvious, far greater and could put a strain on local multi-agency arrangements.
	The noble Lord has argued that the burden imposed on rail freight operators will be a source perhaps of competitive disadvantage in relation to road freight operators. But, as we argue, the regulatory burden on the rail freight companies will in the event be small, and we are working with that sector to try and find ways of keeping this to the absolute minimum.
	So I certainly understand the noble Lord's concerns. I think that the list of responders set out in Schedule 1 is the right one. However, the Bill is a flexible beast and Clause 13 provides that responders can be added to, or removed from, the list. This gives the opportunity from time to time to review and amend the framework, acting very much in the light of experience.
	I have a horrible feeling that, had we not included rail freight operators in the list, the noble Lord would probably have been moving an amendment asking why that was the case. But we have, for the moment, covered that eventuality. We hope that the arrangements that we are putting in place with the flexibility and all the caveats work well.

Lord Lucas: I hope the noble Lord is not too distressed if I say that I would like him to add a written element to his oral directions. I, for one, could certainly do with some more information on what it is about rail freight which is so peculiarly dangerous. What are they doing? I mean, have coal and steel trains suddenly turned explosive? What is going on in the pattern of rail freight that is so much more dangerous than the pattern of road freight? Rail is—what, 6 or 7 per cent of the market?

Lord Berkeley: It is 11 per cent.

Lord Lucas: Then it is doing better, but road freight is still nine times larger. I think that chlorine, for instance, which is an interesting target for anyone seeking to disrupt a neighbourhood is, by and large, road freight. Certainly, many other substances that can be dangerous over a wide area—gas tankers, for instance—tend to be road freight. That argues that if we are to take an interest in what dangers are travelling around, road freight becomes pretty important. If we are to accept the argument that the Minister advanced, that rail freight operators can be represented by Network Rail, that argument applies equally to road operators. If we include them in the Bill in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has suggested, they can make arrangements to be represented by the Road Haulage Association. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, especially as the gander is nine times larger.

Lord Berkeley: I am truly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his support and to my noble friend for his response. I, too, would like my noble friend to spell out why rail freight is a significant source of risk. If he cannot do it now, perhaps he could write to me. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, road freight comprises 89 per cent of the traffic and road freight operators might feel a little insulted to be called disparate. Some of the companies are world class road freight logistics people and they have a very good representative organisation.
	They would have to be asked whether they are interested in participating or be made to participate, but I strongly believe that if one is in, both are in—not just for competition reasons, but for everything else. They have as much information to provide as can the rail freight industry and ditto for the contractors. Can my noble friend write to me or give me a list of organisations covered by Section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 in Clause 23? Why is a company such as Carillion included for its rail operations but not included when it is digging up a motorway? That seems crazy.
	So, as I said, I shall study my noble friend's answer with great interest to see whether I shall come back to the matter later.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 17 agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Interpretation, &c.]:
	[Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.]
	Clause 18 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Category 1 and 2 Responders]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 80A:
	Page 23, line 5, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Central Government
	In relation to England and Wales—
	(a) a Government department or ministry,
	(b) an executive agency or non-department public body, and
	(c) the National Assembly of Wales."

Baroness Buscombe: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 83A. There is a gaping hole in the legislation that we believe is a serious misjudgment. It has the potential to undermine much of the intent of the Bill. Presently, there is no intention to impose category 1 duties on any central government department or the vast majority of central government agencies. That is despite such agencies playing an important and significant part in all of our lives.
	The Committee may be interested to learn that there are 834 public bodies sponsored by UK government departments, spending more than £20 billion of public money each year. Of course, there are the small and relatively obscure, but I am thinking about such significant bodies as the Food Standards Agency, the Highways Agency and the Benefits Agency. Such an omission comes despite the fact that, by and large, the local response is in relatively good shape.
	Where things fall down is when the scale or impact of the emergency require the involvement of central government resources, prime recent examples being the fuel crisis and the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. That failure is a direct result of the fact that central government emergency planning, training and exercising, if it takes place at all, is not integrated with that of local responders.
	We understand that the Government's stance is that,
	"No reference to the role of central government is needed within the Bill for the government to engage in the full range of civil protection duties".
	It is, however, noteworthy that the revised communication and liaison methods proposed following the fuel crisis have never been tested by exercises. Only recently has Defra engaged with local government in the discussion of revised arrangements for handling a recurrence of foot and mouth disease.
	In addition, it could be argued that the Government are setting their own precedent. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 gives category 1 duties to the Secretary of State,
	"in so far as his functions include responding to maritime and coastal emergencies".
	A little further on, paragraph 28 of the schedule gives the Secretary of State category 2 duties,
	"in so far as his functions relate to matters for which he is responsible by virtue of section 1 of the Highways Act 1980".
	If a Secretary of State and, by inference, his department can have duties imposed in those specific areas, why not in general? With the amendment, the Bill would encompass central government and its agencies north and south of the border as category 1 responders. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: In this age of joined-up government—we hope that it is joined-up—and particularly in emergency planning, the smoothest possible co-ordination and integration between the work of government departments and local agencies throughout the country is called for. It is an omission not to include government departments as full responders in the schedule.
	The Minister may try to argue that the Government are implicitly involved because, after all, they are the progenitors of the Bill. They have repealed all the Bills that gave the existing powers, and this Bill is to be the be-all and end-all of emergency planning Bills. I hope that it is, but it seems to leave the Government out. That is an extraordinary state of affairs, and my noble friend has made a serious point. I hope that the Minister will agree. Unless he can provide a convincing argument to show how the Government will otherwise be involved, we shall have to pursue the matter.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In a way, it is the second time of asking for this debate. We went over some of the issues when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, moved his amendment about the role of government. This amendment is probing further on that role and, in particular, the role and responsibilities of the devolved administrations and the non-departmental public bodies in responding to emergencies.
	We had a full and useful debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I shall certainly reflect on it. However, I must briefly highlight some of the ways in which there has been a change in government and a higher quality of recognition of the importance of contingency planning in central government, particularly since 2001.
	I think that government has raised its game in several respects. Individual departments have taken responsibility for contingency planning in their area. There are clearer procedures for exercising the arrangements that have been put in place and for quality control. The Cabinet Office provides a strong centre—there has been criticism of that—for co-ordinating contingency planning throughout government. Ministers have demonstrated a clear commitment to the resilience agenda, which is championed at Cabinet level by the Home Secretary. It would not be right to say that the Government are sitting aside or shirking their responsibilities in this respect.
	The devolved administrations have an important role in contingency planning. The Government believe that responsibilities in regard to emergencies should sit with organisations that have a general policy responsibility; therefore, responsibilities in the resilience area reflect the devolution settlements in place across the United Kingdom. That is reflected in the list of lead government departments and in exercising and quality control arrangements. The UK Government and the devolved administrations work very closely. The devolved administrations are represented on ministerial and official level committees involved in planning for, and responding to, emergencies. They are closely involved in capacity-building work, such as the key capabilities programme described earlier.
	A lot of work and much thought have gone into dividing up those responsibilities between the UK Government and the devolved administrations. An account of how those relationships work in practice has been published by the Home Secretary and can be found on the Civil Contingencies Secretariat website at www.ukresilience.info. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will probably have already had a close look at the website; I know that it is the sort of thing that exercises him.
	The noble Baroness said that the Government did not carry out exercises. We have in place a co-ordinated cross-governmental exercise programme that covers a comprehensive range of domestic disruptive challenges, including accidents, natural disasters and acts of terrorism. The programme is designed to test rigorously the range of lead government department responsibilities and the involvement of devolved administrations at regional and local responder level.
	In addition, local authorities and the emergency services develop their own programme of exercises to test capabilities at local and regional level. That nationwide rolling programme of exercises is designed to ensure that we have the best possible contingency plans in place to respond to a whole range of civil emergency scenarios. Outside our national boundaries the UK observes and participates with international partners in exercises through multilateral fora such as G8, NATO and the EU on a bilateral basis. We are working hard to cover all the angles.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not doubt the Government's commitment to emergency planning, and I have little doubt that they have legal authority for what they are doing, although I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me about that in precise terms. I am concerned that the Bill repeals all the powers under which everything is done at present. The real question is: are we reinstating everything that the Bill repeals? I can see how we are reinstating everything in the regions and for everybody else, but I cannot see how we are reinstating the legislative power that gives the Government authority to continue to do what they are already doing. That is very important. If the Minister can assure me that nothing in Schedule 3—a long list of Acts to be repealed—affects the Government's existing authority to act, that is one thing; if he cannot give me that assurance, we are in some difficulty.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am looking at Schedule 3. My assumption, which is not unreasonable, is that it is exactly the case that we are repealing what could be described as old-fashioned and defunct Acts and replacing them with a more modern set of powers, responsibilities, duties, and so on. I have made the point a number of times that we have consulted very carefully on how that will work with the major responders.
	To give the noble Lord an absolute assurance, there is nothing being repealed here that will do anything to undermine our ability and power to ensure that we have adequate resilience and that we can properly exercise and test in order to ensure that the measures we want or need to put in hand are robust and meet the challenge.
	I think that the noble Lord and most Members of the Committee would accept that the legislation going back to 1948 and beyond is in need of modernising. I know that the noble Baroness does not like the legislation, but we think that that is the case and is what this Bill does. We think that by and large we have got it about right. We are listening to ensure that we get the detail right as well.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I hear what the Minister says. I am in absolute agreement that the legislation needs to be brought completely up to date. It concerns me that we are introducing a lot of powers which necessarily affect all sorts of bodies across the whole of the country. From what I have read about the Bill, I am not absolutely convinced that we have got the necessary legislative authority for the Government. That is really what lies behind my noble friend's concern in putting down her amendment, which makes very plain what the Minister admits he thinks is the situation. I am quite happy for the Minister to continue to explain this, but perhaps subsequently he would write and tell me specifically where the legislative authority for the Government to continue their emergency planning role lies after we have passed this Act.

Lord Elton: Will the Minister tell me whether I have got this right? These exchanges are about the legitimacy and completeness of government power to plan for emergencies. My noble friend brought forward an amendment suggesting that in this Bill there was no provision to involve elements of central government, which she listed in her amendment. As I understood it, the Minister said, "Well, you needn't bother about those because those are already happening anyway".
	My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said that what is happening anyway is being wiped out in the schedule of repeals. It does not seem that the Minister can maintain his original argument if my noble friend is right in that assumption. He must find some other place for the Government to have their powers. I would like to hear where they are.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am in some difficulty here because it seems that two different sets of questions are being asked, which I think I have answered. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was after an assurance that we were not repealing things that we need and that that was his general thrust.

Lord Dixon-Smith: It was not a general thrust; it was a specific thrust in relation to the Government's powers.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are not repealing measures that would in any way detract from our ability to deal with emergencies. The Government do not have and do not need specific legislative authority to plan for an emergency. Their inherent powers are entirely and completely adequate. The Acts being repealed do not relate to the powers of central government. We have covered the point and nothing in the list of repeals undermines what we are seeking to achieve in this piece of legislation in terms of modernising the legislative framework for civil protection. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point, because it should.

Lord Lucas: I chide my noble friends: we must trust the Government that they have done their homework on the abolition of these powers in exactly the same way as they did when they abolished the post of Lord Chancellor.
	The noble Lord said that there is a long list of exercises taking place. May I have a copy of that list?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall be more than happy to furnish the noble Lord with whatever information we can pull together regarding the exercise programme.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Would the Minister write to me detailing what are the Government's "inherent powers"? I find that a fascinating concept.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall seek to clarify that point also.

Baroness Buscombe: At the beginning of our debates today, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, used the word "opaque". That word is appropriate to much of what we have been trying to glean from the Government throughout our discussions. I believe that, with the help of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, we have raised a very important point here.
	Local authorities are being asked, pursuant to this measure, to take on enormous responsibilities in relation to civil protection. They do not deflect from that one iota, nor do we seek to criticise the Government in any way by asking where their authority is to come from when all these Acts have been repealed. What we are seeking to understand is how civil protection can be seriously effective if there is no clear and proper link between local government, government agencies and local responders, and that link made clear in the Bill.
	With the best will in the world, we cannot rely on the Minister's assumptions. Much as we would like, we cannot take his word that all the powers that are required will remain because we do not know what they are. We are being asked simply to accept that central government and government agencies are doing their bit. In being asked to do that, it is a step too far.
	The hour is late and we have had some time to discuss this matter. I appreciate that it is a subject that has been raised in a sense throughout today's debate. However, I urge the Minister to consider what we have had to say before we return to this crucially important point at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 81:
	Page 23, line 21, leave out paragraph 4 and insert—
	"4 A fire and rescue authority within the meaning of section 1 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (c. 21)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 83:
	Page 24, line 10, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
	"9 (1) The Health Protection Agency established by section 1 of the Health Protection Agency Act 2004 (c. 17).
	(2) Until its dissolution consequent upon the coming into force of section 1 of that Act, the Special Health Authority established under section 11 of the National Health Service Act 1977 and known as the Health Protection Agency."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 83A not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 83B:
	Page 25, line 20, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"The petrol and diesel distribution and production industry
	A person who distributes or produces petrol or diesel."

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 83B I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 83C, 86A and 86B. In so doing, I appreciate that I shall be repeating to an extent some of what was said in relation to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. At that stage I was in two minds about whether to intervene, but I was concerned that I might confuse the Minister more by interjecting with different amendments that would have to be taken out of place. So I shall attempt to be brief and I apologise for any repetition.
	In bringing forward this group of amendments we are again attempting to redress what we on these Benches perceive as serious omissions from the list of those bodies that should be included as category 2 respondents. There are a number of striking general omissions: broadcasters, bus and coach companies, the entire food distribution and sales industry, the petrol and diesel distribution industry are not included. National chemical and radiological hazard identification and response schemes such as NAIR, RADSAFE and CHEMSAFE are also missing.
	The omission of such organisations is all the more puzzling given the important role that they would play in any large-scale emergency or incident. For example, bus and coach companies, presumably, would have been a vital component of most evacuation plans in assisting to transport large numbers of people away from the affected areas. On this issue, perhaps the Minister can explain why, if London Underground, train and airport operators are included on the list, bus and coach companies are not.
	I additionally would have thought, given the events of the September 2000 fuel crisis and the near standstill that that incident brought to the country, the Government would have been keen to include in the Bill the producers and distributors of fuel. Again, I look forward with anticipation to the Minister's answer on this issue.
	Furthermore, why is there no mention of broadcasters among category 2 responders? Surely it would be up to both national and local media outlets to publicise during the crisis what was going on and, indeed, to offer advice on what people should be doing—a point we made earlier in relation to informing the public. They could advise, for example, whether they should be staying in their homes or mustering at an evacuation point. Where else are we going to get our information in times of crisis?
	In addition, in any specific locality there are likely also to be particular organisations whose co-operation may be vital to comprehensive planning, such as the operators of major shopping, leisure and sporting complexes. Again, these are not included.
	I hope the Minister will be able to provide an assurance that the reason why these organisations are not included as category 2 respondents on the face of the Bill is that they are already adequately included in other legislation. If the Minister is not able to give me that assurance, I anticipate that he will be happy to accept this group of amendments today. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has added significantly to some of the remarks I made earlier. She has made some very good suggestions. She mentioned that food distribution was not included, but I cannot see which amendment that comes under. However, I agree that it should be.
	Amendment No. 83B refers to a person who distributes or produces petrol or diesel. That is interesting. If my noble friend rejects the amendment, having rejected my amendments, he will find that those who distribute petrol and diesel by rail will be included but those who do so by road will be excluded.
	As to the petrol-tanker drivers' strike of a few years ago, to which the noble Baroness referred, she may not know that the only railway company in the country which has facilities for fuelling by rail is EWS Railways. All the passenger train operators and the other freight operators refuel by road. Heathrow Airport refuels by rail and pipeline; I think the others do it by road.
	So if the Bill is not amended, and if there is another petrol-tanker drivers' strike, we shall be in exactly the same position as we were on the previous occasion; there will be no change at all. I suggest that there need to be discussions between now and the next stage of the Bill to see whether we can agree a more sensible list.
	I agree with the noble Baroness about buses and coaches. Frankly, if there is an emergency, I would much rather get on a bus than on a train. A bus could go a different way if there was a blockage somewhere, whereas a train could get stuck in a tunnel.
	I remind the noble Baroness that, although airports are included, airlines are not included in the Bill.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I rise to speak in connection with Amendment No. 86B, which has been moved by my noble friend. There is not a breath of criticism implied in what I am about to ask, but I was once responsible for someone joining the board of Rolls-Royce as a non-executive director. At the end of his first meeting he wrote to the secretary of the company and said that there were 55 acronyms in the board papers and he was not prepared to come to another board meeting until he had been provided with a code. The Secretary sent him a list of 89 acronyms that were in use in the company and explained that he was meeting quite a number of them for the first time himself.
	In the list in Amendment No. 86B, the names of two organisations are written out in full. The second on the list has a helpful parenthesis which indicates what it is. I can, by some stretch of my imagination, work out what the two last ones are, but I have no idea what CHEMET means. Unless this has already been discussed at an earlier stage in the Bill and I ought to know what it is, it would be helpful if we had slightly greater detail about what the acronyms are.

Lord Lucas: I think it is a frog, if I remember rightly.
	If we suffer a disaster which restricts our ability to move around and which is on a large scale, it seems that food will cause us the largest problem, fastest. We have all got so used to having the supermarket at the end of the road. Not many of us keep enormous stocks of food, although I think that my noble friend Lady Thatcher does. I suppose that we should all have a year's supply of baked beans and a gas mask to deal with the consequences. It would be a brave Government who assumed that there was more than a day or two's supply of food in the average home. That is the thing which will cause us pain and difficulty fastest, after, perhaps, the supply of water. Water is dealt with in the Bill, but food is not.
	We could survive, in a personal sense, without fuel for quite a long time. We would just throw on an extra blanket or two and sit around waiting for things to get better. But we cannot survive without water and we cannot survive without food. If we put the population in a state where it is doubtful about the supply of food, we will see riots quicker than anything. So I hope that the Government will look at making sure that local authorities have a handle on where the food is in their area and the ability to secure that supply in cases where they think that that might become important.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This group of amendments would add a range of bodies to the category 2 responders list. Again, the Government cannot accept the amendments, but I hope that I will, in some part, reassure noble Lords who have taken part in the debate as I explain why we do not, at this stage, plan to include the various bodies referred to in the category 2 responders list.
	Let me start with broadcasters. This is a difficult one, and I can see some of the attractions of including media organisations. However, we have taken the view that it would not be appropriate to include them in the category 2 list. To make their participation in local civil protection arrangements a statutory requirement might impact on their independence as news reporters and news gatherers and may make them feel somewhat inhibited in any investigation they might want to undertake in the context of emergencies.
	There are already long-standing arrangements in the BBC charter and agreement and in broadcasting legislation concerning broadcasters' contribution to defence and emergency arrangements. In practice, media organisations have shown themselves to be very valuable partners in local multi-agency plans for informing the public during and after an emergency. This is expected to continue under new arrangements. The guidance accompanying the legislation will reflect that expectation.
	We think that compelling broadcasters to become involved is unnecessary and may harm the close and constructive set of relationships that are being developed between broadcasters and the local emergency planning community around the country.
	On petrol and diesel producers and distributors, the noble Baroness, along with others, has suggested that fuel suppliers—a key element of the critical national infrastructure—should be included as responders, presumably to give greater security to existing arrangements.
	The Department of Trade and Industry, as the lead department for government, co-ordinates multi-agency contingency planning arrangements for the supply of fuel. That ensures that fuel suppliers are involved appropriately in the contingency planning process. The Bill is focused on local arrangements for responder bodies which have an operational role in emergencies. It is not directly concerned with national arrangements for critical national infrastructure, which is very much outside its local focus.
	Bus and coach operators may become involved in emergencies either as a risk source or as key resource to be drawn on in a response.

Lord Berkeley: What is the risk source of a bus or coach?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clearly, it could in some circumstances become the subject of a terrorist attack or, given that any vehicle of that kind will contain a large amount petrol or diesel, it could become a risk in terms of being attacked in some way.
	The list of responders in Schedule 1 broadly—

Baroness Buscombe: The greatest risk in the view of my peer group is probably the London Underground.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness makes a fair point. The Underground is risky. One can imagine any number of scenarios where there may be a risk, but it is a risk source in certain circumstances.
	The list of responders in Schedule 1 broadly reflects what exists at the moment and what works. As was mentioned when we were talking about road freight, there is a large number of bus and coach operators, many of which are very small. The new framework needs more time to settle in before it is overloaded with new responders. It might be helpful if I were to give some idea of the size of that sector. It comprises 8,300 licensed public service vehicle operators, which hold about 87,000 vehicle discs, with an average fleet size of about ten vehicles. They are very small operators and it would be extremely hard to integrate them into the arrangements in the way which is suggested in the amendment. While we do not want to overload the system with new responders, we have the flexibility to include operators of that nature if, at some later stage, it is appropriate to do so.
	The amendment concerns also miscellaneous organisations that deal with chemical and nuclear hazards. It recommends including in category 2 a number of organisations involved in chemical and nuclear hazards: CHEMSAFE, RADSAFE and the National Radiological Protection Board. As noble Lords will be aware, well established regulatory regimes for civil contingency planning for major chemical and nuclear hazards already exist. The Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) and the Radiation (Emergency Planning and Preparedness) Regulations (REPPR) set out clear multi-agency arrangements for managing the risks associated with particular sites and managing the consequences of incidents when they occur. The Bill does not trespass on those regimes. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication and confusion, COMAH and REPPR have been carved out of the Bill by way of regulations. It is not appropriate to consider those bodies for inclusion in category 2.
	However, many category 1 responders are closely involved in the implementation of those schemes; for example, CHEMSAFE, RADSAFE and NAIR. Local resilience forums will therefore be well sited.The NRPB, for example, already works very closely with the Health Protection Agency, which is a category 1 responder, and will be incorporated within it.
	We have worked very closely with practitioners over two public consultations, and I think that the list of responders set out in Schedule 1 is the right one. As I have said before, however, the Bill is a flexible framework, and Clause 13 provides that responders can be added to or removed from that list. That provides Government with the opportunity to review and amend the framework in the light of experience. No doubt we will listen very carefully to comments made by the organisations that feel they ought to be on the list and see whether we need to amend and incorporate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a point about the resilience of the food chain. In accordance with the lead government department's arrangements, Defra has in place contingency plans in relation to the supply of food. Food supply is indeed part of the critical national infrastructure, and some have suggested that food suppliers should be responders under the Bill. We do not think that there is a need to replicate existing arrangements which work well and place them on the face of the Bill. We think the arrangements that we have in place work well and that Defra, because of its responsibility, is well positioned to ensure that the food supply chain is resilient and robust in the face of the range of emergencies that we might envisage.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response, though I am not too happy with it. It almost feels as though this list has been plucked out of the air. I am extremely grateful for the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friends, who have sought to assist me in demonstrating by example the need for this type of amendment.
	We needed at least to probe the fact that it does not make sense to include some forms of petrol and diesel distribution, such as distribution by rail, but exclude others, such as distribution by road. Other forms are excluded because of a risk factor. As I pointed out, however, probably one of the places at greatest risk is our Underground, which has been included. The BBC charter states somewhere that it should respond and take part in informing the public through broadcasting in the event of emergencies.
	The Bill lacks clarity and it is depressing debating these points. I do not feel that the Minister's responses make sense. It is clear that we will not be able to get an exhaustive list, but that is not really what we are asking for. We are trying to point out some of the key responders that we think should be included in the Bill. Perhaps the Government should give thought to ensuring that at least some form of guidance is published that explains to local authorities and to all involved that the list is not exhaustive.
	We need to remember that this legislation will be picked up and referred to in an emergency. It is crucially important that all those who could be responders do not feel that they cannot be involved because they are not listed in the Bill, or that some Minister does not decide that because they are not listed as a category 2 responder it is not appropriate for them to be involved. That is what really concerns us. We keep hearing from the Minister the need to modernise and to be flexible. But what worries me is that we have any list at all. It is almost worse to have a half-hearted and half-baked list, which could cause more confusion than not.
	I will not go on, as I know that we are seeking to reach a further point in our deliberations tonight, but I urge the Minister to think deeply about these issues before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 83C to 86B not moved.]
	Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Meaning of "emergency"]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 86C:
	Page 12, line 36, leave out from "means" to end of line 40 and insert—
	"(a) an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in the United Kingdom or in a Part or region,
	(b) an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of the United Kingdom or of a Part or region, or
	(c) war, or terrorism, which seriously threatens the security of the United Kingdom."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I come to this issue somewhat late in the fray. However, I rise to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam.
	This new clause relates to Part 2 of the Bill. The Government are very mindful and have a strong desire to ensure that emergency powers cannot be misused. We have looked again at the definition of security and intend to move an amendment to ensure that Clause 19(4) is exhaustive. That would ensure that the use of emergency powers for reasons of security would be possible only in relation to war, including armed conflict or terrorism. That should prevent any suggestion that the powers could be invoked or misused in the name of an unspecified risk of a security or in the face of non-violent civil disobedience. It is therefore unnecessary to include a definition of "security". Amendment No. 93A thus removes the provision.
	Amendment No. 167B defines terrorism, with the meaning given in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and war, as including armed conflict for the purposes of Clause 19(1)(c). That is not to say that any outbreak of war or any act of terrorism will constitute an emergency for the purposes of the Bill. But government Amendment No. 86C makes it clear that it is only if war or terrorism threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom that they will constitute an emergency. I hope that that clarification meets the concerns behind Amendment No. 94.
	Turning to Amendment No. 96, I know that it has been suggested that disruption to electronic communications, as described in Section 1(2)(e) of the Terrorism Act, should be excluded from the definition, and that any serious disruption to electronic communications may have disastrous results. It could potentially cripple the emergency services and key service providers, not to mention the banks. We believe that it is appropriate that emergency powers may be available to restore such services, if needed, and to mitigate the effects.
	Such a disruption could be as a result of terrorism action within the meaning of Section 1(2)(e) of the Terrorism Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out during the first Committee day, we live in an electronic society, in which the destruction of key records held by government, the public sector and business could cause an enormous amount of inconvenience and difficulty for our citizens in their everyday lives. At that stage, the noble Lord also pointed out that a deliberately launched virus could result in such disruption. There was force in what he said on that occasion.
	The definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act is designed to cover all aspects of terrorism. It was approved by Parliament. To remove any part of that definition would be illogical at this stage, and certainly inconsistent with the wider counter-terrorism strategy. I hope that what I have said to support government Amendments Nos. 86C, 93A and 167B allows me to resist Amendments Nos. 94 and 96, and will obviate the need for Opposition Peers to press them.

Lord McNally: I do not want to disappoint the Minister too much but, as this is the start of Part 2, it is worth explaining why we have tabled amendments throughout that part. I do not include the Minister in this attack, but the Liberal Democrats have got used to taking stands on various parts of the legislation that has come through over the past few years on crime and terrorism, and later when we get to the excitement of the hustings in by-elections or various speeches to conferences. The fact that we make Ministers clear high hurdles to get new powers is then termed as meaning that we are soft on crime or terrorism. That is part of the hurly-burly of politics. Like Kipling, I am used to seeing the truths that I have spoken:
	"Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools".
	We will continue to act in that way, including on this Bill.
	As the Minister is aware, there is concern about the nature of the emergency powers asked for in the Bill. It is incumbent on us to make sure that the Bill is drafted as tightly as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has been assiduous in that as well. Where there is a general definition, she has insisted on a precise definition. Where there are broad and sweeping powers or lengthy times, Ministers have been forced to explain and justify them. That is the responsibility of opposition, and also of Parliament with this legislation.
	I hear what the Minister says in introducing the amendment. I will probably incur the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in saying it, but I am worried that we get too bedazzled by new technologies and bow down to them. The words that the Minister used—"disruption", "inconvenience" and "difficulty"—were interesting. Mere disruption, inconvenience or difficulty should not trigger powers as wide and all-encompassing as are given to the Government in the Bill. Therefore at each stage, as with the amendment, we will make Ministers explain why in each set of circumstances they need the powers.
	Ministers have to go beyond mere disruption, inconvenience or difficulty. We support the pre- legislative Joint Committee that talked in terms of a threat to human welfare. Obviously, the threat to human welfare can be consequential to acts that are not initially directly a threat, but will bring threats to human welfare in their train. But we do not want the trip wire that triggers these powers to be too easily removed. I do not doubt the good will of Ministers, but one has only to read history: the massive powers that President Johnson took to escalate the Vietnam war were based on the "Tonkin incident"—an alleged attack on an American ship that never took place. But that government were then able to extend their powers in terms of the war.
	It is extremely important that, as we debate Part 2, we ensure the trip wire is not too loose and that the hurdles the Government have to clear to justify them are not set too low. We are willing to take the risk of being misrepresented in that we will be probing Part 2 deeply—not just regarding these amendments. I heard the Minister's comments and will not press the amendments, but I hope that our reasoning and our approach is clear as we go through Part 2.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry to rise to speak at this time of the evening, but I was not satisfied with Clause 19 as originally drafted and I do not particularly like the Minister's reinterpretation. I am delighted to see her here to argue the cause. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is not too disappointed that he does not have to face us on this issue.
	The Bill states that an,
	"'emergency' means an event or situation which threatens".
	The amendment refers to,
	"an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in the United Kingdom . . . an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of the United Kingdom".
	A situation such as that already exists. I refer to global warming. That is not an emergency, it is true, but, under the definition as drafted in the amendment, it is or could become, an emergency—or someone, if they wished to misinterpret it, could adduce that this was an emergency and that we should act under emergency powers.
	Global warming threatens hugely increased flooding. Even flooding in London has been discussed as a long-term possibility. If one looks at the possible consequences of flood damage in places such as the Severn estuary, one may be putting not only human life, but the environment at serious risk in what the Europeans describe as an environmentally sensitive area that should be preserved at all cost. The long-term effect of global warming puts all such areas in danger. Such a matter could be termed an "emergency" within the context of this definition
	I know that the Minister will give me an absolute assurance that that is not the Government's intention. But we are not dealing with the intentions of the Government—although once they are put on the record in this House they become effective. We are dealing with the words in front of us, which cause me concern.
	My other concern is the introduction of "war" into the amendment, because that seems to bring in a whole new scale to these emergency powers. Actions which a government might take during a war are on a very different scale from those which might be acceptable to the population in peacetime, even as the consequence of an act of terrorism.
	As drafted, if "war" were included here, it would imply that, for the duration of a war which affected the United Kingdom seriously, the Government could rule by regulation, thereby greatly diminishing the powers of Parliament. I do not suppose that that is the Government's intention but it seems to me that it is a possibility that must be considered.
	I shall not go into the consequences of whether the Iraq situation was or was not a threat to the security of this country; that might be too embarrassing an argument to enter into at this hour of the evening. But, as I have illustrated, the wording as it stands, without interpretation, is too loose for the purposes for which, in my view, the Bill is intended. I do not invite the noble Baroness to do anything other than reject my sentiments—that is what I expect—but I ask her to think very seriously about the precision of the definitions in the amendment that the Government are now moving. In my view, this definition is too loose for the purposes for which the Bill is intended.

Lord Lucas: Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I wish us to take our time over this part of the Bill because the powers which it enables Ministers to take to themselves are immense. In fact, they reach to the outer limits of the constitution. There is no limit to what a Minister can do under the Bill because we live in a country where Parliament is sovereign and can do what it likes, and the Bill gives the Minister the power of Parliament.
	There are plenty of restrictions here which are supposed to tap in under relatively ordinary circumstances. Having been through the pre-legislative scrutiny, I am reasonably happy that, under those kinds of relatively ordinary circumstances where the need is pressing to act quickly but we are still a reasonably entire country with a sensible government, we shall probably manage to hold together and produce a sensible conclusion. What concerns me are situations where, for one reason or another, we are pushed beyond that. I want to ensure that under this legislation our system of democracy and the rule of law remain intact, even if they are tested extremely severely.
	Of course, the measure requires that the personality of the Minister who finds himself in charge is warped somewhat and, finding himself with absolute power, he wishes to retain it. But that is not an unknown human characteristic. One cannot trust everyone who finds himself with absolute power to act wisely with it, even though he may be a perfectly adequate Minister of the Crown. There are certainly people involved in politics whom one would not wish to end up with this power under any circumstances.
	It seems to me that, if we are to transfer power in this way to someone, it should be, so far as possible, under the control of Parliament. However, as one can see from 1933 Germany, it is quite possible for Parliament, with its eyes wide open, to transfer absolute power to a madman. I would rather that it did not happen because of something that we had done 30 or 40 years previously that made it impossible for Parliament to exercise a control under those circumstances.
	Therefore, my particular concern with this first clause under Part 2 is that it should be able to be understood by the man in the street. It should be obvious to anyone under what circumstances the Bill can be used. The difficulty that I have with the language, which is rather neatly illustrated by the noble Baroness's redraft, is that it has to be,
	"an event or situation which threatens serious damage",
	but it is not clear that it has to pose a serious threat of serious damage. If I were to go into Parliament Square, dancing up and down and holding an orange and saying, "This is a thermo-nuclear device and I will detonate it and it will obliterate London", that is threatening serious damage but it is not a serious threat.
	We need to be clear on the face of the Bill how serious a threat has to be before it can trigger these immense powers. Does it have to be real? Someone doing something nasty to a ship in the Gulf of Tonkin is a serious insult but it is not a serious threat or serious damage. A minor matter like that on the periphery, or something that is inherently unbelievable, should not be a trigger for the powers taken under this Bill.
	It has been said by the Government that it is inherent in some way in the wording of "threatens serious damage" that there must be a serious threat. But the Government have chosen a different wording for paragraph (c),
	"which seriously threatens the security of the United Kingdom".
	In that paragraph they have gone about it the other way and said that it has to be a serious threat.
	I would like to see this matter expressed in English which anyone is able to understand. In a crisis, in a situation where this Bill is in danger of being abused, it will not be an obstruse constitutional lawyer who will be called upon to decide whether someone is acting within his or her powers; it will be an officer of the police, or whoever is in charge of the Army or other elements of the defence forces at the time, someone to whom this language is foreign and who requires matters to be expressed in English.
	I would like to see the word "serious" or the words "poses a serious threat of" in the provision, so that it is clear that it has to be a serious threat of serious damage and not something that is inherent unlikely to occur. In that way we shall be expressing what we all agree—I believe we all agree—are the circumstances under which these powers should be used.

Lord Elton: My noble friend's speech does not address mere semantics, but the entire interpretation of the Bill. Having heard that and having heard the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I wonder whether the Committee is in a condition at this hour of the night, when we are supposed to adjourn at any moment, to come to a conclusion on this issue. Under our conventions, we are not allowed at a later stage to reverse a decision that we take tonight. I believe it would be possible to amend it. I wonder whether the noble Baroness feels that there is sufficient agreement among the Members in the Chamber to justify proceeding to the Question of whether this amendment be agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope there is. I appreciate that noble Lords have made some very broad comments in relation to Part 2. I have taken on board what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Lucas, about the nature of the scrutiny that they will give to this part of the Bill. Had we not started at twenty minutes to seven, I had intended to make some more comprehensive introductory remarks about Part 2. I am very happy to do that in a few moments.
	We now enter Part 2 and I anticipate that there will be the most careful scrutiny. If noble Lords come to the conclusion at the end of Committee stage that further or other amendments to government amendments are proper, I understand that there will be no impediment in the rules to them being raised again so that we can discuss this issue further.

Lord Lucas: I was hoping that the noble Baroness would give us her explanation. Having decided to start Part 2 at this time of night, we might as well do it properly.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I was going to. I was not clear what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was doing: whether he was inviting me to respond to the comments that he made before he decided whether to make an intervention or whether he was going to sit down. If he does not wish to make an intervention, and no one else does, I am more than happy to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally.

Lord Elton: My intervention was to leave a thought in the mind of the noble Baroness to which she might respond in her response to the debate on the amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I understand the nature of the concerns that he has expressed. I should like to reassure the noble Lord that we are not, and will not be, bedazzled by the technology. We intend to bring the same level of acuity and care to the examination of Part 2 as he would wish because we concur with his view that these are very important provisions.
	It is also our view that this part of the Bill has already benefited substantially from the pre-legislative scrutiny that we have been privileged to take advantage of. I acknowledge too that history has taught us many lessons. If we still had the great advantage of Lord Russell, I am sure he would have delighted us even more with a few of those issues.
	So it is important for us to remind ourselves that Part 2 is very clear in terms of its proposal and intent. It is absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that the emergency powers can be used only if they are necessary and needed urgently. If used, they must be proportionate. Also, any use of the emergency powers must be in accordance with the Human Rights Act and a declaration of compatibility would be issued when making emergency regulations. I am dealing in part with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as to the misuse and indeed the use which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, fears in relation to global warming. Although global warming may be an emergency, it will not be an emergency that would fall within the expected definition.
	The triple lock included in the Bill presents a significant barrier to possible misuse. Emergency powers can be used only if, first, an emergency threatening serious damage to human welfare, the environment or security has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur; secondly, if the new temporary powers are needed urgently and are necessary as existing powers are insufficient; and lastly, any new powers taken must be proportionate. That is the triple lock that has to be unlocked before these provisions could bite.
	The Bill also contains explicit prohibitions on instigating military conscription, prohibiting strikes or other industrial action, amending criminal procedures, altering the right to trial and the creation of offences other than the breach of regulations themselves, for which a strict limit on the punishment available is set out. We shall deal with that later in our debates on the amendments. I would hope that those restrictions would reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the issues he fears have been properly dealt with.

Lord Lucas: I would point out to the noble Baroness that they have not, because you still have power under the Bill to change the nature of Parliament, the courts and indeed anything else and get around the back of the Bill, albeit in two stages. I am not arguing that it is likely to happen, but I am arguing that if the wrong person gets in with those powers there is no restriction on that happening.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not agree. I shall have an opportunity when we come to the amendments which specifically deal with those issues to explain much more fully why I understand the fear the noble Lord has expressed but do not think that it is well founded. On the way we have crafted and drafted the Bill, it actually makes it virtually impossible for that to occur. However, the will of the people of this country could be that they wish to have such a government and then of course it would be their democratic right to choose one.
	It is also suggested that only serious damage should be capable of being considered to be an emergency as opposed to threats of serious damage. The definition already provides that only those threats that threaten serious damage are sufficient to require inclusion within the definition, and the emphasis is on the consequences and not on the level of threat itself.
	Any use of emergency powers will be based upon an assessment of both the likelihood of an event occurring and the consequences of it doing so. In some cases the threat may not be high, but the consequences are so grave as to justify the use of the powers. If, for example, we were to receive warnings that nuclear devices had been planted in major cities, we might wish to take powers to find and neutralise them and to evacuate areas, even if there were a degree of doubt about the credibility of the threat. The seriousness of the consequences is the key factor in determining whether action is necessary. The likelihood of the threatened action materialising may be debatable, but the consequences of inaction would be disastrous.
	At this very late stage, I hope that I have said enough to reassure noble Lords that the amendment is a proper amendment. We will, of course, come back to all the issues as we scrutinise Part 2.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, which has done a great deal to relieve some of my concerns. She has not dealt with the issue of the Government being able to rule by regulation for the duration of a war, if such a war threatened the security of the United Kingdom. I would have thought that that was an arrogation of the powers that Parliament ought properly to exercise during a war.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As we move through Part 2, we will consider the quite rigid restrictions on the duration of the powers and the conditions that must apply before they can be discharged. That does not relate to this amendment. As always in Committee, we scrutinise the Bill clause by clause. The concerns that the noble Lord has properly raised do not arise in this clause; they will arise as we move on.

Lord Elton: In the last part of her reply to my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness said that what was critical to the decision of whether to declare an emergency was not so much the seriousness of the threat as the seriousness of the consequences, were it to materialise. That disposes of paragraphs (a) and (b), but, in paragraph (c), it is the seriousness of the threat that is the criterion, not the seriousness of its consequences. The noble Baroness cannot have it both ways in the three paragraphs.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We envisage three different circumstances that may generate the need to exercise emergency powers. They differ. The last deals with security incidents, which may be war or terrorism. The three categories are important. They may coincide on occasion, or they may be entirely different, but any of the three situations may justify the exercise of the emergency powers.

Lord Elton: I do not follow the reason why the three are treated differently. The nature—the quantum—of the threat is, according to the noble Baroness's argument, the trigger. In the third case, according to the Bill, that is not so.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is clear that, under paragraphs (a) and (b), the seriousness of the consequences of the threat will be of critical importance. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that, if the consequence of the threat would be disastrous, it is absolutely important that the threat be dealt with and taken seriously. The consequences of failing to take it seriously would be unimaginable. In relation to the security of the realm, a similar criterion must apply.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I wish to ask a question arising from a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he said that we may be putting in place powers that an unacceptable government—unacceptable to us, anyway—could then use. I was struck by the Minister's response that, if that government were democratically elected, so be it. That is exactly what I am worried about. If we put the legislation in place, we make it easier for an unacceptable government to say, "These are the regulations and laws that the previous democratic government left us and we are perfectly entitled to use them".

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As we go through Part 2, I hope that Members of the Committee will see that the restrictions and impediments put in the way of any exercise of these powers are such as to retain sovereignty for Parliament so that it can scrutinise these measures. There are restrictions on how far the orders can be made and changed. The orders will be by affirmative resolution. Therefore Parliament will be able to decide whether it wishes to affirm or dismiss them.
	I apologise for using shorthand, but I do so because of the lateness of the hour. If it were earlier, I assure Members of the Committee that they would be treated to a far longer, more detailed explanation of the arguments, which I am not entirely sure noble Lords would necessarily relish. Our clear view is that the restrictions are very tight. Many of the restrictions in the Bill are significantly firmer than the current legislation under the 1920 Act. That is what we will rely on. In due course, we will argue each clause properly.

Lord Elton: I wish to avail myself of the noble Baroness's invitation to respond. I remain regretful that it is necessary to decide the matter this evening, not merely because of my anxieties about what has been said, but because it is a pity that we have to make a decision before we know what the Government's response will be to Amendment No. 97A. That amendment, tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, would remove subsection (5), which enables the Secretary of State to rub out everything that we have just said and put in place a new category. That seems deeply disturbing.
	I do not suppose the noble Baroness is prepared to give us a preview of next week's performance; therefore, I would prefer to return to this matter at a later Committee sitting, which would mean recommitment. The noble Baroness shakes her head. In that case, we will be arguing about the same part of the Bill, not in this box-and-cox, chop-and-change, very efficient way that we have in Committee, but with each noble Lord restricted to saying one thing and hoping that they got it right in the debate. That is a great pity, given the importance of what we are now to decide.

Lord Lucas: It was not me who started this debate at a quarter to seven. It is open to the noble Baroness, if she is feeling tired, to adjourn the Committee in the middle of this discussion and resume the debate later in the same way as one would if a Division in the House occurred during a Grand Committee sitting in the Moses Room. As the noble Baroness has decided to start the debate now, I want to see it done properly, even though it may take until half-past eight. This is the first amendment in a new part of the Bill. I would not have made the decision to proceed with the debate if I had been on the Front Bench. I am sorry that the noble Baroness has taken that decision, but she must bear the consequences: we have started on something new and we want to debate it properly.
	The noble Baroness has said that if the threat is serious enough, however likely or unlikely, it must be able to trigger this part of the Bill. She is saying that it can be something entirely imaginary or illusory. The Government have so many powers and sources of information that they are capable of creating the illusion of a serious threat to this country. Indeed, one does not have to look back many months to see them do exactly that. We have just been to war as a result of an illusion created by this Government.
	It would take only the creation of a similar illusion to trigger this part of the Bill. By refusing to make this something that requires a serious threat, we are taking one step towards making it easier for someone to misappropriate this part of the Bill.
	Yes, we will come in detail to the safeguards that the noble Baroness alleges are in later parts of the Bill. But just to pick up, for example, on one thing that she just said, she relies on the controls exercised by Parliament. But for one month in every four or five years there is no Parliament. It is a time when, for instance, Al'Qaeda has chosen to attack Spain. If it attacked us at a similar juncture, there would be no Parliament.
	It would be very easy in the aftermath of a serious attack for someone who was so inclined to say, "It is inappropriate at this stage to proceed with elections. It is inappropriate at this stage that we should be troubled by the operation of the courts. We have to concentrate on ridding ourselves of this menace". It is open to such abuse. We have to be so careful about making sure that we can rescue our democracy from someone who intends to misuse this legislation.
	We should not hurry over it. We should not be tempted by the noble Baroness's suggestion that we should get things over early merely because she has started something with a quarter of an hour to go, which would properly take a lot longer to debate. We need to consider this aspect properly. It is a very important step to follow her down the road and say that we do not require a real threat. As long as it is a threat of something sufficiently serious, imagination will do.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 86C) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 21.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eight o'clock.